Translative....

[Rob A.]

Well i just listened how my granma explained how "katokko mutkasta tulivat etehen aiva huomaamatta, kukaha kerenny mitähä tekemähä" and that was to me totally proper common finnish she also claimed that "ny ko oot saanu kamppehes kasaha siihe kämppähä ni katotaha jos siihe jotaki kukkiaki saahas, kai siinä ny o tilaa?"

Ja lappilaine lähetys päättyy tähä, tämä o sitä mu oikeeta suomea ja jos ootta eriä mieltä ni saunan takana nähä

And to be honest i understand but i cant explain "taloittaansokanhokan" so...

OK...it's been translated for me... the first bit is something about someone coming from behind a curve without being noticed...I suppose someone driving carelessly on a rural road... ...and the second bit about having some space left over for flowers once the stuff has been moved into an apartment.

This word though, wasn't understood: taloittaansokanhokan....My guess..?? taloittaan ...."without our houses"...sokan...the genitive of sokka...cotter pin"...???....hokan...absolutely no idea....

Anyway...it will be a long time...if ever, before I can deal with dialects...

[silk]

Oh well...I'm trying.....

Me too...

Lets take olento, for example. I would only associate olento with some sort of creature, animal, human, alien... but not with a case. I'm not saying the Latin names are any more intuitive (unless you know Latin), but they are the ones I learned to associate with cases when I was a kid.

[Rob A.]

I found this website, in English, explaining the object complement....

http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hyp ... compl.html

The site gives a number of examples which I thought it might be interesting to try to interpret in Finnish:

1. This first example, to get things started, is a standard construction with a subject complement. The verb, "to seem", is copular and intransitive.

"The driver seems tired,"

I think this would simply be:

Ajaja tuntuu väsynyt.

2. Now an object complement construction:

"I consider the driver tired."

I'm not sure if Finnish would handle this the same way. In English you could also say: "I consider that the driver is tired.", which clearly shows that the word, "tired" is a complement of "driver", not a complement of, "I".

Anyway, assuming you can handle it the same way in Finnish, I think it would be something like this:

Harkitsen ajajan väsyneeksi. How's this??? I think the accusative case would be used for ajaja, but I'm not sure???

3. "Paint it black."..."black" is an object complement of the word, "it". In Finnish, I think this can be handle in at least two ways, depending on whether you are being literal or figurative.

Maalaa sen mustaksi. ...to, literally, paint something black.... How is this??

Or, Mustamaalaa sen......meaning to disparage something. The use of the translative is sidestepped with a specific verb form. Maybe a bit like saying, in English: "Blacken it."

4. "The judge ruled her out of order."
This is a little bit tougher for me as I'm not sure of all the Finnish legal terminology...

Tuomari hallitsi hänet epäkunnosseksi....Hmmmm...???

5. Final example: "I saw the Prime Minister sleeping."

Näin pääministeri nukkuvaksi. ..which, I think, could also be written: Näin että pääministeri oli nukkumassa.....Yes ???...

[onkko]

I
"The driver seems tired,"

I think this would simply be:

Ajaja tuntuu väsynyt.

Ajaja tuntuu väsyneeltä.

2. Now an object complement construction:

"I consider the driver tired."

I'm not sure if Finnish would handle this the same way. In English you could also say: "I consider that the driver is tired.", which clearly shows that the word, "tired" is a complement of "driver", not a complement of, "I".

Anyway, assuming you can handle it the same way in Finnish, I think it would be something like this:

Harkitsen ajajan väsyneeksi. How's this??? I think the accusative case would be used for ajaja, but I'm not sure???

Minusta ajaja on väsynyt. minusta(lit. from me) = according to me, my opinion

3. "Paint it black."..."black" is an object complement of the word, "it". In Finnish, I think this can be handle in at least two ways, depending on whether you are being literal or figurative.

Maalaa sen mustaksi. ...to, literally, paint something black.... How is this??

Or, Mustamaalaa sen......meaning to disparage something. The use of the translative is sidestepped with a specific verb form. Maybe a bit like saying, in English: "Blacken it."

sounds good.

4. "The judge ruled her out of order."
This is a little bit tougher for me as I'm not sure of all the Finnish legal terminology...

Tuomari hallitsi hänet epäkunnosseksi....Hmmmm...???

5. Final example: "I saw the Prime Minister sleeping."

Näin pääministeri nukkuvaksi. ..which, I think, could also be written: Näin että pääministeri oli nukkumassa.....Yes ???...

Tuomari määräsi hänet epäkuntoiseksi/rikkinäiseksi and that of course is nonsense because human cannot be "epäkuntoinen/rikki" in court finnish so i assume "out of order" in here means what i see in tv (someone acting not properly) but i cannot think good translation since i havent been that many "käräjät" so i dont know procedure how they throw people out. I know they can remove someone who is "against order" to keep "order" but someone more criminal may have more info

and other is Näin pääministerin nukkuvan, Näin että pääministeri oli nukkumassa. is more like "i saw that the prime minister was sleeping" and Näin pääministeri nukkuvaksi. is only possible if you are taika-jim talking tarzan

[Rob A.]

Thanks onkko...I'll study this for a bit...

Though this one I definitely don't understand, grammatically:

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan....

I understand why, "pääministerin" is in the accusative...that was originally an oversight on my part, but why, "nukkuvan"??? ...Seems to be in the accusative...or genitive...???

[Upphew]

Thanks onkko...I'll study this for a bit...

Though this one I definitely don't understand, grammatically:

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan....

I understand why, "pääministerin" is in the accusative...that was originally an oversight on my part, but why, "nukkuvan"??? ...Seems to be in the accusative...or genitive...???

Participle? http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisiippi

[Jukka Aho]

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan....

I understand why, "pääministerin" is in the accusative...that was originally an oversight on my part, but why, "nukkuvan"??? ...Seems to be in the accusative...or genitive...???

I think it’s the referative construction again.

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan. = Näin, että pääministeri nukkui.

See VISK § 538.

[Rob A.]

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan....

I understand why, "pääministerin" is in the accusative...that was originally an oversight on my part, but why, "nukkuvan"??? ...Seems to be in the accusative...or genitive...???

I think it’s the referative construction again.

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan. = Näin, että pääministeri nukkui.

See VISK § 538.

Heh.. Yes...I guess we've seen this before...I think I have a paper somewhere that talks about this specifically in terms of it meaning something like, literally..."....the Prime Minister's sleeping." So it would be "pääministerin" in the genitive and "nukkuvan" in the accusative.... Well...maybe I'm correct ...

[Jukka Aho]

Heh..:D Yes...I guess we've seen this before...I think I have a paper somewhere that talks about this specifically in terms of it meaning something like, literally..."....the Prime Minister's sleeping."

I’d approach it from this angle:

Näin pääministerin. (accusative)
“I saw the Prime Minister.”

Näin pääministerin... tekevän mitä?
“I saw the Prime Minister... do what?”

Näin pääministerin (acc) nukkuvan (acc?)?
“I saw the Prime Minister sleeping.” / “I saw the Prime Minister was asleep, sleeping.”

[Bavarian]

2. Now an object complement construction:

"I consider the driver tired."

I'm not sure if Finnish would handle this the same way. In English you could also say: "I consider that the driver is tired.", which clearly shows that the word, "tired" is a complement of "driver", not a complement of, "I".

Anyway, assuming you can handle it the same way in Finnish, I think it would be something like this:

Harkitsen ajajan väsyneeksi. How's this??? I think the accusative case would be used for ajaja, but I'm not sure???

Minusta ajaja on väsynyt. minusta(lit. from me) = according to me, my opinion

Is there any difference between "minusta" and using the "minun mukaan" construction? Is one of them more colloquial than the other? Or is "minun mukaan" just wrong here?

[Jukka Aho]

Is there any difference between "minusta" and using the "minun mukaan" construction? Is one of them more colloquial than the other? Or is "minun mukaan" just wrong here?

Mukaan takes a possessive suffix when it is used in this role; as an equivalent of the expression “according to...”:

Sinun mukaasi...
Hänen mukaansa...
Heidän mukaansa...

So you’d say “minun mukaani”.

It sounds a bit awkward though – as if you were quoting your own opinions, in some detached way, as a higher authority or a published source on the topic. (How often do you actually get to use the phrase “according to me” in English...?) This expression – jonkun mukaan – is more likely to be used when discussing “formal” ideas or theories, political standpoints, or results of a study, or simply when citing an expert or authority.

Professori Hannu Juusolan mukaan pelkän etunimen käyttö on muslimimaissa yleistä ja aivan hyväksyttävää. (original story)

Minusta, on the other hand, is simply the equivalent of “in my opinion”, “I think (that)...” It is used when reflecting direct personal opinions, likes and dislikes:

Minusta tuo nainen on todella kaunis. Eikö sinustakin?

There’s overlap in the usage, of course. But as a general rule, use minusta, sinusta, hänestä etc. when referring to personal, mundane opinions and “jonkun mukaan” when they’re more formal(ly discussed) standpoints. And if you’d like to refer to your own opinions or findings in a “formal” fashion, you will possibly want to use something like “Kehittämäni teorian mukaan...”, “Suorittamieni kokeiden perusteella...”, “Väitöskirjassani esitän pitävät todisteet sille, että...”

[Rob A.]

Heh.. Yes...I guess we've seen this before...I think I have a paper somewhere that talks about this specifically in terms of it meaning something like, literally..."....the Prime Minister's sleeping."

I’d approach it from this angle:

Näin pääministerin. (accusative)
“I saw the Prime Minister.”

Näin pääministerin... tekevän mitä?
“I saw the Prime Minister... do what?”

Näin pääministerin (acc) nukkuvan (acc?)?
“I saw the Prime Minister sleeping.” / “I saw the Prime Minister was asleep, sleeping.”

Hmmmm.... One test would be to substitute a personal pronoun for the noun.... since each personal pronoun has a specific accusative form ....and a distinct suffix.... "-t"

"I saw him sleep(ing)."...Näin hän(xx) nukkuvan. ...I'll let you put in the correct word as I think you will know intuitively what it will be... I would only be repeating it by "rote", not by any deep feel for the language...

[Jukka Aho]

Hmmmm.... One test would be to substitute a personal pronoun for the noun.... since each personal pronoun has a specific accusative form ....and a distinct suffix.... "-t"

"I saw him sleep(ing)."...Näin hän(xx) nukkuvan. ...I'll let you put in the correct word as I think you will know intuitively what it will be... I would only be repeating it by "rote", not by any deep feel for the language... :D

Hmm... clever!

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan.
Näin hänen nukkuvan.

On the other hand:

Näin pääministerin.
Näin hänet.

Still, I’d argue there’s no “possessive explanation” for this; it’s just a grammatical convention lacking any literal meaning having to do with ownership/possession. (Sorry! ;)

[Bavarian]

Is there any difference between "minusta" and using the "minun mukaan" construction? Is one of them more colloquial than the other? Or is "minun mukaan" just wrong here?

Mukaan takes a possessive suffix when it is used in this role; as an equivalent of the expression “according to...”:

Sinun mukaasi...
Hänen mukaansa...
Heidän mukaansa...

So you’d say “minun mukaani”.

So what's the difference between that and the use of mukaan in this article:

Vantaan käräjäoikeuden mukaan vaimo surmasi miehensä ampumalla viime kesäkuussa Petikossa.

Or does the possessive not get used with inanimate objects? I could swear, though, that I've seen that mukaan used without a possessive suffix when it's according to some person (a police spokesman or some such).

[Rob A.]

Hmm... clever!

Näin pääministerin nukkuvan.
Näin hänen nukkuvan.

On the other hand:

Näin pääministerin.
Näin hänet.

Still, I’d argue there’s no “possessive explanation” for this; it’s just a grammatical convention lacking any literal meaning having to do with ownership/possession. (Sorry!

OK...I'll accept that...for now anyway...

These constructions can get tricky for non-native speakers....and probably, all the more reason to follow the advice Alden usually gives...to learn these things as logical chunks and just keep moving forward until the proper usage becomes ingrained in one's thinking ...

Interesting, though, that with participles...verbal adjectives ...the genitive form is used....and I do remember reading an explanation for this somewhere.and as you said it is a grammatical convention not precisely related to "possession"....

[Aside: The genitive in Finnish, and in many other languages, has multiple roles....in English it has been reduced to just one role....]

And..with infinitives ...at least the third infinitive, I think you could say:

Näin pääministerin nukkumassa.....Yes...???

....but now replacing the noun with a personal pronoun it would be:

Näin hänet nukkumassa....???

Somehow in the second example the Prime Minister is the direct object of the sentence and in the first example, nukuvan...or, perhaps, the whole phrase, pääministerin nukkuvanis ...well, I'll leave it there for now...more analysis required....