Translative....

[AldenG]

Although in this instance, the difference is so slight....tappmista v. tappamasta

4th infinitive: tappaminen, tappamista (partitive), tappamisesta (elative).
The fourth infinitive is the most noun/gerund-like of all the verb forms.

Tappama/sta would be the 3rd infinitive in elative.
It would also be translated "killing" but it doesn't have a noun-like aspect.

Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenin.
The soldiers returned just now from killing Bin Laden.

[Rob A.]

Although in this instance, the difference is so slight....tappmista v. tappamasta

4th infinitive: tappaminen, tappamista (partitive), tappamisesta (elative).

Tappama/sta would be the 3rd infinitive in elative.

Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenin.
The soldiers returned just now from killing Bin Laden.

Thanks Alden.....I think it will be a long while before such subtle distinctions become "ingrained". In the meantime...it will just have to be "painfully spoken" Finnish...but gradually improving, I hope....

[AldenG]

I slipped in some more clarification while you were quoting me. Always the risk with my posts, no?

[David O.]

Thanks....correct me if I'm wrong...other than copular setnences where there is no object, of course, direct objects can only be in the partitive or genitive/accusative..??

Or in the nominative, with an imperative verb form (anna se minulle!). Other than that, my only hesitation would be how to account for things like pidän jääkiekosta... to the English-based brain, that looks very clearly like a direct object in the elative, but I suspect that to Finnish grammarians, the very fact that it's in the elative would prevent them from classifying it as a direct object, and they'd end up saying that this is an intransitive sense of pitää which requires a complement in the elative.

Just to add to the confusion, I feel I should point out that you weren't completely wrong to think that tappamista could be an elative form. It could be an elative plural in the agent construction, which works like this:
Sofi Oksasen kirjoittama romaani = a novel written by Sofi Oksanen
Yhdysvaltain joukkojen tappama terroristi = a terrorist killed by U.S. forces
Bin Laden on tunnetuin Yhdysvaltain joukkojen tappamista terroristeista = Bin Laden is the most well-known of the terrorists killed by U.S. forces

That usage is probably on the order of a hundred times less common than the partitive tappamista (derived from the 4th infinitive tappaminen, as Alden explained), but it does exist...

[Upphew]

Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenin.
The soldiers returned just now from killing Bin Laden.

I would say: Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenia. Or: Sotilaat palasivat äsken reissultaan, jolla tappoivat Bin Ladenin, if you need to emphasize that the killing was completed.

[AldenG]

Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenin.
The soldiers returned just now from killing Bin Laden.

I would say: Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenia. Or: Sotilaat palasivat äsken reissultaan, jolla tappoivat Bin Ladenin, if you need to emphasize that the killing was completed.

I did wonder about that, but concluded incorrectly (it would seem) that since tappoivat would want accusative, tappama- forms would want the same. Although I believe you, I don't have any kind of mental framework to explain why it should be different.

I'm not sure why I had vague misgivings about Bin Ladenin, whether it was a correct memory conflicting with imposed logic or whether it's a symptom of all-round "partitive malaise." Sometimes when filling out a tax return in English, I'll catch myself wondering if a sum needs to be in partitive.

[Rob A.]

Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenin.
The soldiers returned just now from killing Bin Laden.

I would say: Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenia. Or: Sotilaat palasivat äsken reissultaan, jolla tappoivat Bin Ladenin, if you need to emphasize that the killing was completed.

I did wonder about that, but concluded incorrectly (it would seem) that since tappoivat would want accusative, tappama- forms would want the same. Although I believe you, I don't have any kind of mental framework to explain why it should be different.

I'm not sure why I had vague misgivings about Bin Ladenin, whether it was a correct memory conflicting with imposed logic or whether it's a symptom of all-round "partitive malaise." Sometimes when filling out a tax return in English, I'll catch myself wondering if a sum needs to be in partitive.

Tricky stuff....but I think it must have something to do with the nature of the Finnish third infinitive. This infinitive seems to imply the performance of an act rather than the outcome of the act. The important part of the sentence...as it is written, of course, ....is the "return of the soldiers", not the killing of Osama...

Here are a few less evocative examples to play with from uusikielemme:

Olen ravintolassa syömässä.
Tulen ravintolasta syömästä

I think there is little doubt that with the first one if you were to add what you were eating....say ruoka, you would put it in the partitive. The second example is a little more difficult...but I think you would have no choice but to use the partitive again...even to me the genitive-accusative would sound odd...

Tulen ravintolasta syömästä ruokaa.

Just my two cents worth....Comments appreciated...critical or not....

[Rob A.]

Now I wonder if using the verb, ampua would change anything....

Sotilaat palasivat äsken ampumasta Bin Ladenia/ Bin Ladenin.

My sense is that it would still have to be in the partitive for the same reasons as above...that is the outcome of the "shooting" is not the point of the sentence...the main point is the return of the soldiers....

Sotilaat palasivat äsken ampumasta Bin Ladenia.....though I'm not totally sure...

[AldenG]

I wonder that, too, although tappaa is more definitive and whole in outcome than ampua.

I was also wondering, as I wandered through the hardware store tonight, whether there is any difference between He tulivat tappamasta X and Pimeys esti heitä tappamasta X.

The whole palasivat tappamasta feels a bit contrived to me (maybe that's just oversensitivity on my part), but since the whole point was to contrive an example of -masta, it had to do.

[Rob A.]

I wonder that, too, although tappaa is more definitive and whole in outcome than ampua.

I was also wondering, as I wandered through the hardware store tonight, whether there is any difference between He tulivat tappamasta X and Pimeys esti heitä tappamasta X.

The whole palasivat tappamasta feels a bit contrived to me (maybe that's just oversensitivity on my part), but since the whole point was to contrive an example of -masta, it had to do.

Well...I'm still thinking about this..... There has to be an explanation...

In Finnish the third infinitive is apparently called the MA-infinitiivi.... I searched the Iso suomen kielioppi, and found 32 pykälää...which, I assume means "sections"

http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/haku.php ...search using: "ma infinitiivi"

With my level of Finnish, it's a bit heavy going....but maybe an explanation is buried in one of these pykälät....

And I thought maybe my examples above were a little too obvious...

How about if we substituted omena...something that you would typically "completely eat"...

Tulen ravintolasta syömästä omenan....omenaa... Which seems correct to a native speaker???
...my sense is that it has to be omenan....unless you wanted to emphsize that you didn't finish eating the apple... [Which brings me "full circle"....I have now "convinced" myself that, "tappamasta Bin Ladenia" can't be "logical"...]

And if it were:
Tulen ravintolasta syömästä koko omenan....I think it can only be genitive-accusative....???

[onkko]

Tulen ravintolasta syömästä omenan....omenaa... Which seems correct to a native speaker???
...my sense is that it has to be omenan....unless you wanted to emphsize that you didn't finish eating the apple... [Which brings me "full circle"....I have now "convinced" myself that, "tappamasta Bin Ladenia" can't be "logical"...]

And if it were:
Tulen ravintolasta syömästä koko omenan....I think it can only be genitive-accusative....???

Well i have to admit that i couldnt think where i could use that kind of sentence so i would say none of this
But if i have to choose i would select omenaa since restaurant probably have way more than my portion of apple, i really cant eat all apple on restaurant. Thats it if portion isnt one whole apple for customer.
Compare this to "söin hirven" "söin hirveä", i would like to see one who "syö hirven"

[AldenG]

At a quick glance, section 931 says that both are possible. Specifically, it discusses certain types of -massa endings at the end of the page.

Partitiiviobjekti on tyypillinen MA-infinitiivin inessiivin muodostamille lausekkeille (Näin Riitan valmistamassa aamiaista) ja samanaikaisuutta ilmaisevalle temporaalirakenteelle (Riitta loukkasi sormensa valmistaessaan aamiaista). Verbistä riippuen totaaliobjektikin on mahdollinen: Riitta pistäytyi kotona valmistamassa aamiaisen; Tanner innostuu Hanno Möttölän iskiessä komean korin

So -massa typically wants partitive but the "total object" is also possible, as in the part that I colored.

I'm sure there's more somewhere -- I was just looking at the summary of results on VISK's search page for ma infinitiivi. I'll look further later.

BTW, note how the first valmistamassa has no possessive ending but the second one does have it (-massaan). See why? This example also touches on how an infinitive in -massa can sometimes substitute for one in -essa.

[Rob A.]

Well i have to admit that i couldnt think where i could use that kind of sentence so i would say none of this
But if i have to choose i would select omenaa since restaurant probably have way more than my portion of apple, i really cant eat all apple on restaurant. Thats it if portion isnt one whole apple for customer.
Compare this to "söin hirven" "söin hirveä", i would like to see one who "syö hirven"

Heh...

Now, how about this statement:

Tulen ravintolasta syömästä ateriaa ....aterian.. Which would seem correct?

If it is ateriaa, then maybe saying, Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenia....is a bit like saying... "The soldiers returned from killing (a) Bin Ladin." ....the "Bin Laden" part simply is not "definite" enough to attract the accusative-genitive case...

[Rob A.]

At a quick glance, section 931 says that both are possible. Specifically, it discusses certain types of -massa endings at the end of the page.

Partitiiviobjekti on tyypillinen MA-infinitiivin inessiivin muodostamille lausekkeille (Näin Riitan valmistamassa aamiaista) ja samanaikaisuutta ilmaisevalle temporaalirakenteelle (Riitta loukkasi sormensa valmistaessaan aamiaista). Verbistä riippuen totaaliobjektikin on mahdollinen: Riitta pistäytyi kotona valmistamassa aamiaisen; Tanner innostuu Hanno Möttölän iskiessä komean korin

So -massa typically wants partitive but the "total object" is also possible, as in the part that I colored.

I'm sure there's more somewhere -- I was just looking at the summary of results on VISK's search page for ma infinitiivi. I'll look further later.

BTW, note how the first valmistamassa has no possessive ending but the second one does have it (-massaan). See why? This example also touches on how an infinitive in -massa can sometimes substitute for one in -essa.

Ok... I'll see what I can absorb from that...

[Upphew]

Now, how about this statement:

Tulen ravintolasta syömästä ateriaa ....aterian.. Which would seem correct?

That would need some meat around... if you said ateriaa when you bump to old friend at the lobby of hotel, the friend most likely would assume that you will return to finish the meal, at least I would. Aterian on the other hand seems bit much in that situation, why would you say aterian? What else would you eat? If you meet the friend at the door of strip bar/restaurant, then the aterian would be a ok.

If it is ateriaa, then maybe saying, Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenia....is a bit like saying... "The soldiers returned from killing (a) Bin Ladin." ....the "Bin Laden" part simply is not "definite" enough to attract the accusative-genitive case...

Sotilaat palasivat äsken tappamasta Bin Ladenia, we're still waiting for the results. If they succeeded, then you would use some other construct, as that one isn't definite about the result.