Translative....

[AldenG]

But I gather one cannot be apostolien vertainen without being Pyhä. So Pyhä apostolien vertainen Benedictus must be something like Detective First Class Jones.

[Rob A.]

But I gather one cannot be apostolien vertainen without being Pyhä. So Pyhä apostolien vertainen Benedictus must be something like Detective First Class Jones.

I suspect that is so with the modern Orthodox Church...though, historically, the Byzantine emperors styled themselves apostolien vertainen....though I don't think they used the appellation, pyhä....I think that was reserved for religious figures....

[Rob A.]

In one of the links I found this:

Marttyyri on uskonsa vuoksi surmattu kristitty maallikko. Uskonsa tähden surmattua papistoon kuuluvaa henkilöä kutsutaan pappismarttyyriksi tai piispaa marttyyripiispaksi. Uskonsa tähden surmattua pyhittäjää kutsutaan pyhittäjämarttyyriksi.

...which I'm having some trouble with... Three examples of the translative, though that part isn't too difficult...it's the rest of the sentences ...

Literally:

"A martyr is because of his faith a slain Christian layman...???. Because-of-his-faith-killed-clergy, said person one calls priest-martyr or (if) bishop, bishop-martyr. Because-of-his-faith-slain-devotee one calls a devotee martyr."

Typical English;

"A martyr is a Christian adherent, killed because of his faith. A member of the clergy killed because of his faith is called a "priest martyr.", or (if) a bishop, a "bishop martyr". A devotee killed because of his faith is called a "devotee martyr".

I think this is close...I'm not sure of the correct "martyr" terminology in English.... The word, surmattua is, I believe, a past participle in the partitive case acting as an adjective. The word, papistoon...???..."clergy" in the illative case...???

And I note that:

pappismarttyyriksi, marttyyripiispaksi, pyhittäjämarttyyriksi. are all in the translative...the "becoming" case....I don't know why this terms couldn't be in the partitive. Maybe I'm overlooking some logical reason ... {Edit: And, how soon I forget...we just went through this...translative because the verb, kutsua, requires it.... Easy, peasy... ]

[David O.]

The word, papistoon...???..."clergy" in the illative case...???

Papistoon kuuluva henkilö = A person belonging to the clergy (the verb kuulua requires the illative)...

[Rob A.]

The word, papistoon...???..."clergy" in the illative case...???

Papistoon kuuluva henkilö = A person belonging to the clergy (the verb kuulua requires the illative)...

Got it...literally: "(in)to-clergy-belonging-person"...

[AldenG]

I think maybe this is an example of how, although prepositions are necessary grease for a translation, they can also gum up the comprehension. When the point comes at which you don't need to translate, you won't need to find the right prepositions, either. The pieces of kutsuu -ksi and kuuluu -oon simply fit together and the choice of case, or at least the "meaning" of the case, will feel much less prominent and significant than it does now.

Or as you put it, in this example some of the words are translative simply because kutsuu requires translative. It isn't that the nature of the person is necessarily changing or "becoming," as when someone valmistuu opettajaksi or something räjäytetään muruiksi. It's just that certain hubs require certain types of attachment points in order to fit on the bicycle. Even when there is a physical interpretation it comes to be more habit or cliche than deliberation, like "blew it to smithereens."

Interestingly (perhaps), there is a point at which you will still be parsing even when you are no longer translating. And of course everyone has to parse at least a sentence or two every now and then, even native speakers, it seems to me, when dealing with particularly perverse specimens.

[AldenG]

Now onkko has had me wondering for a couple of days how "out of order" in the courtroom sense would be expressed in Finnish. It refers to the rules of order, if that's what they're called in the courtroom, and thus to a violation of who can say something and what they can say and when they can say it. But from the little I've seen, courts in Finland are different enough that I'm not sure the concept even applies.

When a machine is broken, it is out of [working] order. But in court it means a different thing more like järjestyksen rikkominen -- I think, but now I realize I don't know exactly what it means in English, either. Like quite a few words in my own language, I have a better idea of when to use it than exactly what it means. I've sometimes wondered if that looseness of approach makes it easier for me to learn languages and to read those that I don't fully grasp.

[AldenG]

I just saw a headline on CNN.com that said "Magical island escapes" and my first thought was Now how did THAT happen?

[Rob A.]

I think maybe this is an example of how, although prepositions are necessary grease for a translation, they can also gum up the comprehension. When the point comes at which you don't need to translate, you won't need to find the right prepositions, either. The pieces of kutsuu -ksi and kuuluu -oon simply fit together and the choice of case, or at least the "meaning" of the case, will feel much less prominent and significant than it does now.

Yes.. very simple, straightforward statements I can comprehend without resorting to English...but with more complex statements I'm still learning how the language is "put together".....literal translations help with that.... It seems, if at all possible, Finnish wants adjectives and adjectival phrases to proceed the noun they are modifying... English is more flexible in this regard with adjectival phrases typically following the noun...

This example, papistoon kuuluvaa henkilöä .., in English, you would probably just say: "a member of the clergy". With my current knowledge of Finnish, though, I still have to parse this in order to figure out which words modify which other words... At least with this example, the fact that one of the adjectives and the noun are in the partitive case made this a bit easier. If they had been in the nominative I might even have had trouble determining whether or not kuuluva would be part of a verbal construction or a verbal adjective ...

[onkko]

Rob i have never parsed anything or understood anything, i know that verb is "teonsana" but thats it. You can judge how well i understand or can produce english

[onkko]

Thats btw interesting, i dont "know" even my native language but still i read english books and look english tv-shows and movies withouth subtitles, i just dont care about how things become how they are, they just are.
I do would like that my ability would be usefull in some day, i mean out of my own hunger of knowledge. Currently knowing more russian than "stoi" seems to be more beneficial (thats if tuulen wont hire me as indeginious intrepreter (spelling))

[David O.]

It seems, if at all possible, Finnish wants adjectives and adjectival phrases to precede the noun they are modifying... English is more flexible in this regard with adjectival phrases typically following the noun...

English is definitely not more "flexible". There are certain types of adjectival phrases in English that have to go before the noun, and certain types that have to go after it, but no types (at least not that I can think of) that can go in either position. This is something that foreign learners of English struggle with, because they don't naturally feel the structural differences between those phrases. Finnish, on the other hand, is consistent; by hook or by crook, you've got to get the adjectival phrase in there before the noun (unless of course you want to cheat and use a relative clause, but what would be the fun in that?), no matter how long it is. Try this sentence: Bin Ladenin tappamista pidetään viime vuosikymmenellä tuntemattomasta Illinois'n osavaltion senaattorista Yhdysvaltain ensimmäiseksi tummaihoiseksi presidentiksi kohonneen ja sen jälkeen suurelle osalle amerikkalaisia pettymystä tuottaneen Obaman virkakauden suurimpana ulkopoliitisena saavutuksena. That's an extreme example, and a painfully artificial one, but wade through it and you should be able to handle just about any noun phrase you ever come across...

Another note: post-nominal adjectival modifiers in English are structurally opaque in a sense. "The house around the corner" really means "the house which is (located) around the corner". Finnish logic doesn't permit the omission of core elements like that, you have to make all the structural links explicit: nurkan takana oleva talo.

And yes, Alden is right that you shouldn't get bogged down too much in the "meaning" of the cases. Imagine if you were learning English and tried to do that with prepositions. What do "in", "on", and "at" mean? Beats me. You just have to learn enough words that require each case and then eventually you'll develop an intuitive feeling for it.

[AldenG]

Bin Ladenin tappamista pidetään viime vuosikymmenellä tuntemattomasta Illinois'n osavaltion senaattorista Yhdysvaltain ensimmäiseksi tummaihoiseksi presidentiksi kohonneen ja sen jälkeen suurelle osalle amerikkalaisia pettymystä tuottaneen Obaman virkakauden suurimpana ulkopoliitisena saavutuksena.

Wow -- the first four words and the last five comprise the basic sentence. The other nineteen are just editorializing! I wonder if Finnish (and probably German, too) newspaper writers sit around trying to think how to outdo each other in this art, the way American ones do with witty headlines.

The house around the corner made me think for some reason of the difference between the over-the-hill gang and the gang over the hill.

[David O.]

Like quite a few words in my own language, I have a better idea of when to use it than exactly what it means. I've sometimes wondered if that looseness of approach makes it easier for me to learn languages and to read those that I don't fully grasp.

That's an excellent point. Having spent the past few years teaching English abroad and watching people struggle with it, I'd say that that looseness of approach is absolutely essential. I had a student yesterday who was baffled by the phrase "a legitimate reason" because she was only familiar with the legal meaning of the word legitimate and she didn't think to extend it to the broader concept of "valid, justified, acceptable, genuine, proper". To some extent, I think dictionaries are to blame here, because they generally force us to think in terms of what a word means rather than when it's used, even though the former is a function of the latter.

Bin Ladenin tappamista pidetään viime vuosikymmenellä tuntemattomasta Illinois'n osavaltion senaattorista Yhdysvaltain ensimmäiseksi tummaihoiseksi presidentiksi kohonneen ja sen jälkeen suurelle osalle amerikkalaisia pettymystä tuottaneen Obaman virkakauden suurimpana ulkopoliitisena saavutuksena.

Wow -- the first four words and the last five comprise the basic sentence. The other nineteen are just editorializing! I wonder if Finnish (and probably German, too) newspaper writers sit around trying to think how to outdo each other in this art, the way American ones do with witty headlines.

Well, you can't blame a Finnish journalist for this one; I wrote it myself, in order to see how many different kinds of modifiers I could string together and still end up with a perfectly grammatical and reasonable-sounding sentence. But I've certainly come across similarly extreme examples "in the wild"...

[silk]

Bin Ladenin tappamista pidetään viime vuosikymmenellä tuntemattomasta Illinois'n osavaltion senaattorista Yhdysvaltain ensimmäiseksi tummaihoiseksi presidentiksi kohonneen ja sen jälkeen suurelle osalle amerikkalaisia pettymystä tuottaneen Obaman virkakauden suurimpana ulkopoliitisena saavutuksena.

Heh... this is a good one...

To my ear suurelle osalle amerikkalaisista sounds better, but after repeating the sentence a few times I'm not sure any more. What do you think?