Kysymyksiä!

[weijie]

1. 'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
I learned from textbook, that 'tietääkseni' usually is tranlated as 'as far as I know', but how about here? I picked this single sentence from a novel, the context says that a girl is watching this man very morning. How do you translate the latter part of sentence?

2. 'Lily oli avannut silmänsä ja mentyään lähemmäs'
What is 'mentyään'?? I could not find it on dictionary.

3. 'Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa ison maalauksen ääressä.'
I still feel confused when should put all words in the same case, if ask me to write a sentence like this, i would probably write: 'Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa isossa maalauksessa ääressä. Would you plz tell some basic idea when should I this, when shouldn't I. And also latter part of sentence means: 'who stood at the verge of a large shining rectangular painting', am I right?

4. 'Mies oli seisonut paikallaan alushoususilaan.'
What is 'paikallaan alushoususilaan'?

5. 'Hän oli käyttänyt maalatessa koko vartaloaan. Hän kurottautui, kumartui, syöksähti kangasta kohti.'
What kind of case this 'vartaloaan'? '-an' is possesive suffix, so I think it should be 'vartaloan', but why here 'vartaloaan'?
What is norminative of 'maalatessa', I tried several time could not find on dictionary. And how should I understand 'syöksähti kangasta kohti'?

Kiitoksia!!!

[Rob A.]

1. 'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
I learned from textbook, that 'tietääkseni' usually is tranlated as 'as far as I know', but how about here? I picked this single sentence from a novel, the context says that a girl is watching this man very morning. How do you translate the latter part of sentence?

How does this sound to you??

"Always very early, before daybreak, neither man as far as she knew noticed her." The word, tietääkseen has a thrid person possessive suffix.

2. 'Lily oli avannut silmänsä ja mentyään lähemmäs'
What is 'mentyään'?? I could not find it on dictionary.

Yes...that word was giving me some trouble...

"Lily opened her eyes and went in closer."...Not totally sure but here's something "biblical" I found:

Ja mentyään hautakammion sisään he näkivät nuorukaisen istuvan oikealla puolella, puettuna pitkään, valkeaan vaatteeseen; ja he peljästyivät suuresti.

...which apparently translates as:

"And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in long, white garment, and they were afraid a lot."

This is just a machine translation, but you get the idea....

3. 'Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa ison maalauksen ääressä.'
I still feel confused when should put all words in the same case, if ask me to write a sentence like this, i would probably write: 'Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa isossa maalauksessa ääressä. Would you plz tell some basic idea when should I this, when shouldn't I. And also latter part of sentence means: 'who stood at the verge of a large shining rectangular painting', am I right?

I'll let someone else handle this one...a bit too subtle for me ...

4. 'Mies oli seisonut paikallaan alushoususilaan.'
What is 'paikallaan alushoususilaan'?

I would translate this as:

"The man was standing in his place in his underpants." Something like that anyway...

5. 'Hän oli käyttänyt maalatessa koko vartaloaan. Hän kurottautui, kumartui, syöksähti kangasta kohti.'
What kind of case this 'vartaloaan'? '-an' is possesive suffix, so I think it should be 'vartaloan', but why here 'vartaloaan'?
What is norminative of 'maalatessa', I tried several time could not find on dictionary. And how should I understand 'syöksähti kangasta kohti'?

1. vartaloa-an...the partitive case

2. The nominative of maalatessa is maalata..but I'm trying to think of a place you might use that form...???...and I can't..

3. 'syöksähti kangasta kohti'....syöksähtää is a momentane verb related to syöksyä...so I would say it means: "It/he/she suddenly rushed ....and the last part...towards the forest."

[Jukka Aho]

1. 'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
I learned from textbook, that 'tietääkseni' usually is tranlated as 'as far as I know', but how about here? I picked this single sentence from a novel, the context says that a girl is watching this man very morning. How do you translate the latter part of sentence?

"Always very early, before daybreak, neither man as far as she knew noticed her." The word, tietääkseen has a thrid person possessive suffix.

anivarhain = extremely early in the morning (there can hardly be an earlier point in time); at the earliest possible moment/hour

eikä can be a part of the ei...eikä (“neither...nor”) structure but here it means “and...not”

“Every time at the earliest possible hour, before the break of dawn, and the man had not noticed her, according to her knowledge.”

2. 'Lily oli avannut silmänsä ja mentyään lähemmäs'
What is 'mentyään'?? I could not find it on dictionary.

"Lily opened her eyes and went in closer."

“Lily had opened her eyes and after having gone(/moved) closer...”

...Not totally sure but here's something "biblical" I found:
Ja mentyään hautakammion sisään he näkivät nuorukaisen istuvan oikealla puolella, puettuna pitkään, valkeaan vaatteeseen; ja he peljästyivät suuresti.

...which apparently translates as:

"And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in long, white garment, and they were afraid a lot."

“And after having entered the tomb, ...”

3. 'Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa ison maalauksen ääressä.'
I still feel confused when should put all words in the same case, if ask me to write a sentence like this, i would probably write: 'Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa isossa maalauksessa ääressä. Would you plz tell some basic idea when should I this, when shouldn't I. And also latter part of sentence means: 'who stood at the verge of a large shining rectangular painting', am I right?

I'll let someone else handle this one...a bit too subtle for me ...:D

Break up the sentence like this:

Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa, ison maalauksen ääressä.
Komean miehen, joka seisoi tuossa loistavassa suorakulmiossa.
Komean miehen, joka seisoi ison maalauksen ääressä.

We’re being given two different descriptions on where he was standing: one which is more general in its nature (“in that brilliant rectangle”) and another one which is more specific (“by the big painting”) – the latter clarifying the former.

4. 'Mies oli seisonut paikallaan alushoususilaan.'
What is 'paikallaan alushoususilaan'?

I would translate this as:

"The man was standing in his place in his underpants." Something like that anyway...

Yes, or rather: “The man was standing still in his underpants.” (seisoa paikoillaan = to stand still)

What is norminative of 'maalatessa'

2. The nominative of maalatessa is maalata..but I'm trying to think of a place you might use that form...???...and I can't..:D

Mies yritti maalata kissan punaiseksi. Hän heräsi sairaalasta kolme päivää myöhemmin.

3. 'syöksähti kangasta kohti'....syöksähtää is a momentane verb related to syöksyä...so I would say it means: "It/he/she suddenly rushed ....and the last part...towards the forest."

The original sentence was...

Hän oli käyttänyt maalatessa koko vartaloaan. Hän kurottautui, kumartui, syöksähti kangasta kohti.
“He had used his entire body [as a tool/brush?] when painting. He craned up [on his toes?], stooped down, dashed [or threw himself?] towards the canvas.”

[Rob A.]

1. 'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
I learned from textbook, that 'tietääkseni' usually is tranlated as 'as far as I know', but how about here? I picked this single sentence from a novel, the context says that a girl is watching this man very morning. How do you translate the latter part of sentence?

"Always very early, before daybreak, neither man as far as she knew noticed her." The word, tietääkseen has a thrid person possessive suffix.

anivarhain = extremely early in the morning (there can hardly be an earlier point in time); at the earliest possible moment/hour

eikä can be a part of the ei...eikä (“neither...nor”) structure but here it means “and...not”

“Every time at the earliest possible hour, before the break of dawn, and the man had not noticed her, according to her knowledge.”

Hmmm...a bit subtle for me....I'll have to think about this a bit...

2. 'Lily oli avannut silmänsä ja mentyään lähemmäs'
What is 'mentyään'?? I could not find it on dictionary.

"Lily opened her eyes and went in closer."

“Lily had opened her eyes and after having gone(/moved) closer...”

Good...So is this a passive/impersonal FOrm....menntyä="having gone" plus -än="her" ...."...her having gone..."...??? ...and how does the word, "after" fit into this ? Because it is a passive past participle......a completed action?

[quote="Jukka Aho"[/quote]

What is norminative of 'maalatessa'

2. The nominative of maalatessa is maalata..but I'm trying to think of a place you might use that form...???...and I can't..

Mies yritti maalata kissan punaiseksi. Hän heräsi sairaalasta kolme päivää myöhemmin.[/quote]

Yes..I understand that...but I think the discussion was about maalata in the nominative form, implying that there is a noun.with that form...or maybe I'm confusing the grammar a bit...???...

I think I would translate this sentence this way:

'Hän oli käyttänyt maalatessa koko vartaloaan.
"He had applied in (with) paint his whole body."

But I realize this isn't quite correct....as "paint" is maali....maalissa....

3. 'syöksähti kangasta kohti'....syöksähtää is a momentane verb related to syöksyä...so I would say it means: "It/he/she suddenly rushed ....and the last part...towards the forest."

The original sentence was...

Hän oli käyttänyt maalatessa koko vartaloaan. Hän kurottautui, kumartui, syöksähti kangasta kohti.
“He had used his entire body [as a tool/brush?] when painting. He craned up [on his toes?], stooped down, dashed [or threw himself?] towards the canvas.”

Yeah, OK....I didn't pay enough attention to the context of the sentence...

[weijie]

Thank you! Please explain further, what kind of form is 'mentyään'?
Since the none for painting is 'maalaus', and verb is 'maalata', I still do not understand how can I form a word like 'maalatessa'.

[Rob A.]

Maalatessa is a second infinitive form. See here.

And as for mentyään I'm still working on that...it seems to be some sort of passive past participle...I think with a partitive and a third person possessive suffix. I keep looking for more information, but at this point it seems clear that it is a verbal noun and somehow the grammar seems to require it to be in the partitive...

I suppose if it were a longer sentence it might actually be easier to figure out... The last suffix -än is almost certainly the third person possessive ending...as there seems to be a whole series of forms....mentyään, mentyäni, mentyäsi, mentyämme...

[Edit: OK I found one explanation in wiktionary...it's a participle clause and these are used to make sentences more compact... It's explained at item #6....
(possessive) used in a shortened sentence expressing subsequent actions when the clauses have the same subject "you" (addressing one person), appended to the partitive of the passive past participle singular:

Here's their example:

Tehtyäsi läksysi (sinä) kuulit laukauksen ulkoa.

In the link below you can find the declension of the participle tehty
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tehty ]

[Jukka Aho]

'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
“Every time at the earliest possible hour, before the break of dawn, and the man had not noticed her, according to her knowledge.”

Hmmm...a bit subtle for me....I'll have to think about this a bit...

Subtle... in what sense?

2. 'Lily oli avannut silmänsä ja mentyään lähemmäs'
“Lily had opened her eyes and after having gone(/moved) closer...”

Good...So is this a passive/impersonal FOrm....menntyä="having gone" plus -än="her" ...."...her having gone..."...???

Um, not really.

mentyäni = after having gone (I)
mentyäsi = after having gone (you)
mentyään = after having gone (he/she)
mentyämme = after having gone (we)
mentyänne = after having gone (you (pl.))
mentyään = after having gone (they)

Seems like the usual personal forms to me.

Compare to:

mennessäni = as I was* going
mennessäsi = as you were* going
mennessään = as he/she was* gone
mennessämme = as we were* going
mennessänne = as you (pl.) were* going
mennessään = as they were* going

* = could denote any grammatical tense depending on the main verb in the sentence:

Mennessäni kauppaan olin jo unohtanut kaiken.
Mennessäni kauppaan olen jo unohtanut kaiken.
Mennessäni kauppaan unohdin jo kaiken.
Mennessäni kauppaan (nyt) unohdan jo kaiken.
Mennessäni kauppaan (huomenna) unohdan jo kaiken.
Mennessäni kauppaan tulen jo unohtamaan kaiken.

and how does the word, "after" fit into this ? Because it is a passive past participle......a completed action?

mentyäni = after having gone, I...
tehtyäni (jotain) = after having done (something), I...
juostuani = after having run, I...
sanottuani (jotain) = after having said (something), I...
laulettuani (laulun) = after having sang (the song), I...

Tehtyäni ruokaa päätin katsoa televisiota.
“After having made some food I decided to watch some TV.”

Tehdessäni ruokaa päätin katsoa televisiota.
“As I was making some food I decided to watch some TV (either simultaneously, at the same time, or in the future.)”

'Hän oli käyttänyt maalatessa koko vartaloaan.
"He had applied in (with) paint his whole body."

“He had used, at the time he was painting, his whole body.”
“He had used, as he was painting, his whole body.”
“As he was painting, he had used his whole body (for that).”

[weijie]

Kiitos avusta, Jukka! Would you please also tell me the name of this grammatical phenomenon? I checked 'uusikielemme' website, had not found such case yet.

[Jukka Aho]

Kiitos avusta, Jukka! Would you please also tell me the name of this grammatical phenomenon? I checked 'uusikielemme' website, had not found such case yet.

Well, on the surface level:

• juostessani, nukkuessani, laulaessani – second infinitive + possessive suffix
• juostuani, nukuttuani, laulettuani – past passive participle + possessive suffix

But those are not really adequate explanations. What we’re looking at here, once again, are lauseenvastike (“equivalent-of-clauses”), or “non-finite clauses” / “non-finite constructs”. The specific grammatical term for these two examples is (I guess) “the temporal adjunct”.

See this paper for more information...

• Functional Projections in Finnish Non-Finite Constructions

... especially section three (and “3.2.1 The Temporal Adjunct”) Alas, the paper is in the .ps (PostScript) format – prepared for a PostScript-capable printer – and may not be readily viewable without converting it to a more common format first, such as PDF. See here for some tools which enable you to do that. Or you could take advantage of Google’s HTML rendition of the same – not as good but lets you see how the document looks like.

[Rob A.]

'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
“Every time at the earliest possible hour, before the break of dawn, and the man had not noticed her, according to her knowledge.”

Hmmm...a bit subtle for me....I'll have to think about this a bit...

Subtle... in what sense?

OK... the "neither/nor" construction...not the "neither" construction...but I still don't quite get it...

I assume mies is the subject of this part of the sentence...so why could you say...Mies ei hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä. If it is used simply for emphasis, well...that's easy enough to understand. And is "neither/nor" is intended, then I assume there would have to be to negative grammatical elements ..

Mies ei ollut huomannut häntä eika ollut huolinut hänestä. ="The man had neither noticed her nor cared about her."....But I'm sure there is a better way to say this....perhaps a more compact way using some lauseenvastike construction..??..

...But those are not really adequate explanations. What we’re looking at here, once again, are lauseenvastike (“equivalent-of-clauses”), or “non-finite clauses” / “non-finite constructs”. The specific grammatical term for these two examples is (I guess) “the temporal adjunct”.

See this paper for more information...


Functional Projections in Finnish Non-Finite Constructions
... especially section three (and “3.2.1 The Temporal Adjunct”) ...

Thanks for the paper...so it seems that the passive past participle form is used, but apparently it is not viewed as a passive construction...

From sec. 3,2,1 pages 3 and 4 of the paper:

In (6c), the passive variant of (6a), the possessive suffix (corresponding to the subject of afinite clause) is suppressed. Furthermore, we have to stipulate that the perfective aspect ofthe Temporal Adjunct (6b) does not have a passive variant; there is no way to express thepassive perfective using the Temporal Adjunct – of course, a full finite clause can alwaysbe used to express any of the interpretations not allowed by the grammar of the non-finite....- (6b) addresses the form we have been discussing ...the critical thing, though, appears to be that in this lauseenvastike the understood subject has to be the same as in the main clause...the possessive suffix can only refer to the main subject....

[Jukka Aho]

'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
“Every time at the earliest possible hour, before the break of dawn, and the man had not noticed her, according to her knowledge.”

I assume mies is the subject of this part of the sentence...so why could you say...Mies ei hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.

If it is used simply for emphasis, well...that's easy enough to understand. And is "neither/nor" is intended, then I assume there would have to be to negative grammatical elements ..

I’m not sure if I understand your question... so you’d maybe like to rephrase or clarify. ;)

Mies ei ollut huomannut häntä eika ollut huolinut hänestä. ="The man had neither noticed her nor cared about her."....But I'm sure there is a better way to say this....perhaps a more compact way using some lauseenvastike construction..??..

That’s the normal ei...eikä (“neither...nor”) construction, in my opinion. Can’t think of a more compact way to say it. Had the objects for the verbs been in the same case, you could have compacted it a bit by using something like “Mies ei ollut huomannut eikä huolinut häntä.”

“ei huolinut hänestä” – in other words, “huolia jostakin”, which is usually only used in negative sentences – is a bit old-fashioned way of expressing the idea someone didn’t much care for somebody/something (as a love interest, or pertaining to their opinions/taunts/whatever); they ignored or rejected it/them.

[Rob A.]

'Aina anivarhain, ennen aamunkoittoa, eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.'
“Every time at the earliest possible hour, before the break of dawn, and the man had not noticed her, according to her knowledge.”

I assume mies is the subject of this part of the sentence...so why could you say...Mies ei hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.

If it is used simply for emphasis, well...that's easy enough to understand. And is "neither/nor" is intended, then I assume there would have to be to negative grammatical elements ..

I’m not sure if I understand your question... so you’d maybe like to rephrase or clarify.

OK...would Mies ei hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä. be equivalent to eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.....and if not, what would be the distinction, or difference between the two sentences? In other words, exactly what role is being played by the word eikä in the original sentence?

[quote="Jukka Aho""]

Mies ei ollut huomannut häntä eika ollut huolinut hänestä. ="The man had neither noticed her nor cared about her."....But I'm sure there is a better way to say this....perhaps a more compact way using some lauseenvastike construction..??..

That’s the normal ei...eikä (“neither...nor”) construction, in my opinion. Can’t think of a more compact way to say it. Had the objects for the verbs been in the same case, you could have compacted it a bit by using something like “Mies ei ollut huomannut eikä huolinut häntä.”

“ei huolinut hänestä” – in other words, “huolia jostakin”, which is usually only used in negative sentences – is a bit old-fashioned way of expressing the idea someone didn’t much care for somebody/something (as a love interest, or pertaining to their opinions/taunts/whatever); they ignored or rejected it/them.[/quote]

Thanks...and what would be a more modern way of using “huolia jostakin” ?
Maybe recasting the sentence, Mies ei ollut huomannut häntä eika ollut huolinut hänestä., in a more modern register?

[Jukka Aho]

OK...would Mies ei hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä. be equivalent to eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.....and if not, what would be the distinction, or difference between the two sentences? In other words, exactly what role is being played by the word eikä in the original sentence?

Mies ei hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.
“The man had not, to her knowledge, noticed her.”
“To her knowledge, the man had not noticed her.”

...eikä mies hänen tietääkseen ollut huomannut häntä.
“...and the man had not, to her knowledge, noticed her.”
“...and to her knowledge, the man had not noticed her.”

That’s about it.

ei = not
eikä = and ... not

ei+kä – when used alone and not clearly as a part of an ei...eikä comparison/equation – adds an “affirming”, “asserting”, sense to the negation. As if the writer was trying to pre-emptively brush away any possible doubts the reader might have about the truthfulness of the statement. Or just to denote yet another, additional, related piece of information which helps to underline the point of the sentence.

[quote="Jukka Aho""]“ei huolinut hänestä” – in other words, “huolia jostakin”, which is usually only used in negative sentences – is a bit old-fashioned way of expressing the idea someone didn’t much care for somebody/something (as a love interest, or pertaining to their opinions/taunts/whatever); they ignored or rejected it/them.

Thanks...and what would be a more modern way of using “huolia jostakin” ?[/quote]
Mikko ei välittänyt muiden poikien pilkasta.
Mikko jätti pahat sanat huomiotta.
Mikko jätti pilkan omaan arvoonsa.

Or if it’s about a love interest:

Mikolle tyttö ei kelvannut, sillä hänellä oli liian suuri suu.

There are probably dozens of somewhat context-dependent ways of saying someone didn’t much care for someone else but ignored her, or rejected her, or never even wanted to get involved with her. “...ei huolinut hänestä” is a compact way of expressing the idea of rejection but it sounds a bit archaic, somehow. (You might find it used in some of those old Project Gutenberg texts which have fallen into public domain...)

[AldenG]

Some of the confusion is because #1 is not actually a sentence, as it lacks a full complement of parts. It can only really stand after some other sentence. Like this. If you get my drift. (Same problem with #3.) Number 3 wants to come after something like Yhtäkkiä hän huomasi ihmisen. Komean miehen, joka seisoi... It would be split across sentences that way only for dramatic effect. Or maybe weije simply capitalized the first word of a fragment of a sentence and I assumed it was supposed to be a full sentence.

When sentences really are written like that, it can be extremely confusing to learners who're expecting that the reason each piece is done a certain way should be apparent between the confines of the initial capital and the full stop at the end. You simply can't make sense of #3 without assuming some foregoing context. But it takes more knowledge to recognize that fact than it takes to decipher the fragment in its full context.

Then we have to remember that in English, "nor" has another context besides neither...nor.

That its the not, ...nor context, which can span more than a sentence.

"The man had not seen her, nor did he show any signs of agitation."

"That night the ferry did not dock at the pier. Nor would it ever again."

I think one would have to think a bit to concoct an example where eikä couldn't be translated as "nor."

Well, it can stand alone with an exclamation point and mean "No way!" So I won't say there are no other exceptions, either. But they're exceptions.

[Jukka Aho]

Some of the confusion is because #1 is not actually a sentence, as it lacks a full complement of parts. It can only really stand after some other sentence. Like this. If you get my drift. (Same problem with #3.) Number 3 wants to come after something like Yhtäkkiä hän huomasi ihmisen. Komean miehen, joka seisoi... It would be split across sentences that way only for dramatic effect. Or maybe weije simply capitalized the first word of a fragment of a sentence and I assumed it was supposed to be a full sentence.

Yeah. Lack of context; the usual peril of isolated example sentences.

Then we have to remember that in English, "nor" has another context besides neither...nor.

That its the not, ...nor context, which can span more than a sentence.

"The man had not seen her, nor did he show any signs of agitation."

Oh. I was unsure if “nor” can actually be used like that in English. I recall reading an article which advised against using it in any other grammatical construction than “neither...nor”. But if it can be used more freely, “nor” is pretty much the equivalent of eikä.

Then again, you can have a lone eikä:

Miehellä oli mukanaan vain sen verran omaisuutta mitä hän jaksoi repussaan kantaa, eikä hän enempää tarvinnutkaan. (“...and he did not (really (feel the)) need (for) anything more”)

I think one would have to think a bit to concoct an example where eikä couldn't be translated as "nor."

Well, it can stand alone with an exclamation point and mean "No way!" So I won't say there are no other exceptions, either. But they're exceptions.

Yes.

— Kuulitko jo Saarasta? Sillä on uusi mies.
— Eikä?! (“No way! You got to be kidding!”)