what is prediktatiivi?

rio · Post by **rio** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:11 am

I want to know about prediktatiivi in Finnish grammer. For example in what kind of situations it should be used and what is rule to make the predikatiivi ?

For example consider the following sentences:

Jäätelö on ------ (makea).
Onko ilma tänään ----- (kaunis)?

Thanks.

**Sponsor:**

Rob A. · Post by **Rob A.** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:56 am

rio wrote:I want to know about prediktatiivi in Finnish grammer. For example in what kind of situations it should be used and what is rule to make the predikatiivi ?

For example consider the following sentences:

Jäätelö on ------ (makea).
Onko ilma tänään ----- (kaunis)?

Thanks.

I guess you mean "predikatiivi"...

Your question is probably too general and too broad....there is nothing particularly "Finnish" about this. It is just a grammatical element related to the predicate of a sentence. In the two examples you gave these can also be called adjectival subject complements, and the subject and the subject complement are linked by the copular verb, "olla"...

With a copular verb the subject complement typically remains in the nominative form...unless the sense of the descriptor requires the partitive. Your two examples would ...I think....take complements in the partitive...makeaa and kaunista, because they have a general, incomplete sense...though I'm not totally positive about this...???...

If it was something specific and complete , then you would use the nominative ...Sinä olet todella kaunis. ....Talo on kaunis.

Google search using "predicative".....there are other forms of "predicative"

kalmisto · Post by **kalmisto** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:46 pm

I want to know about prediktatiivi in Finnish grammer

FINSPELL tells you that "prediktatiivi" should be "predikatiivi" :
http://www2.lingsoft.fi/cgi-bin/finspel ... diktatiivi

Vellamo · Post by **Vellamo** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:51 pm

Rob A. wrote: With a copular verb the subject complement typically remains in the nominative form...unless the sense of the descriptor requires the partitive. Your two examples would ...I think....take complements in the partitive...makeaa and kaunista, because they have a general, incomplete sense...though I'm not totally positive about this...???...

I would say:

Jäätelö on makeaa.
Ilma on kaunis.

I guess "jäätelö on makea" could also be used in some context, but I can't think of anything that doesn't sound clumsy and forced. As I'm a native, you probably already guessed that I have no explanation as to why the weather doesn't require partitive.

Rob A. · Post by **Rob A.** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:57 am

Vellamo wrote:I would say:

Jäätelö on makeaa.
Ilma on kaunis.

I guess "jäätelö on makea" could also be used in some context, but I can't think of anything that doesn't sound clumsy and forced. As I'm a native, you probably already guessed that I have no explanation as to why the weather doesn't require partitive.

Thanks...and, yes, of course, I wouldn't expect a native speaker to "know why"....they just "know how" ....

And, amazingly...at least to me, I'm almost getting to that point now too...some things "look right" and some things "look wrong"....and I bother less and less with trying to figure out why...

I think, though, the explanation is that jäätelö is a non-specific noun ....jäätelö, in general, so to speak. And that its condition ....makea.... is an ongoing state...

Ilma on the other hand is specific and complete....this particular ilma...not any other ilma. And so it attracts, in this instance, because of the copular verb, the nominative. In other instances perhaps it would attract the accusative....

Jukka Aho · Post by **Jukka Aho** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:00 am

Vellamo wrote:I guess "jäätelö on makea" could also be used in some context, but I can't think of anything that doesn't sound clumsy and forced.

Such phrasing could refer to a single well-defined serving of ice-cream (such as a stick of ice-cream.) But the reason why it sounds off is probably because ice-cream is sweet, almost by definition - everyone knows that already. Saying something like that is so obvious it sounds inane...

Jukka Aho · Post by **Jukka Aho** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:06 am

Rob A. wrote:
Vellamo wrote:Ilma on kaunis.
Ilma on the other hand is specific and complete....this particular ilma...not any other ilma. And so it attracts, in this instance, because of the copular verb, the nominative. In other instances perhaps it would attract the accusative....:D

The word ilma should be thought as meaning “the weather” here... not “air”. (I’m not trying to imply you would not have got that... I’m just saying because looking the matter from that angle will probably make it easier to understand your reasoning.)

Rob A. · Post by **Rob A.** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:18 am

Jukka Aho wrote:
Rob A. wrote:
Vellamo wrote:Ilma on kaunis.
Ilma on the other hand is specific and complete....this particular ilma...not any other ilma. And so it attracts, in this instance, because of the copular verb, the nominative. In other instances perhaps it would attract the accusative....
The word ilma should be thought as meaning “the weather” here... not “air”. (I’m not trying to imply you would not have got that... I’m just saying because looking the matter from that angle will probably make it easier to understand your reasoning.)

Thanks....initially I was thinking in terms of "air", but in my last post, I realized the idea was "weather"....and so to me, anyway,the nominative (...accusative in other contexts) would "feel right." Hey, I'm starting to sound like a native speaker!!

Jaskahko · Post by **Jaskahko** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:45 am

If you want to have some terrible nightmares, take a look at the web version of Big Finnish Grammar (Iso Suomen Kielioppi) concerning the use of partitive:
http://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/hakemisto.php?a=p&h=852

Object marking in Finnish is probably one of the most difficult subjects to achieve an intuitive instinct in what case you should use... There are so many different aspectual factors behind the reality how genitive-accusative and partitive divide the object marking: definity, partiality, dividability(?) etc.

AldenG · Post by **AldenG** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:17 pm

Jukka Aho wrote:
Vellamo wrote:I guess "jäätelö on makea" could also be used in some context, but I can't think of anything that doesn't sound clumsy and forced.
Such phrasing could refer to a single well-defined serving of ice-cream (such as a stick of ice-cream.) But the reason why it sounds off is probably because ice-cream is sweet, almost by definition - everyone knows that already. Saying something like that is so obvious it sounds inane...

Like "Wow, this water is wet!" or "Hey, this pool is wet!"?

It's still hard for us to develop any innate sense of the reaction you describe, though. That puzzles me, because there are other strong differences in Finnish compared to English that have come to feel second nature-ish to me, even when still subject to mistake.

Jaskahko · Post by **Jaskahko** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:59 pm

AldenG wrote:
Jukka Aho wrote:
Vellamo wrote:I guess "jäätelö on makea" could also be used in some context, but I can't think of anything that doesn't sound clumsy and forced.
Such phrasing could refer to a single well-defined serving of ice-cream (such as a stick of ice-cream.) But the reason why it sounds off is probably because ice-cream is sweet, almost by definition - everyone knows that already. Saying something like that is so obvious it sounds inane...
Like "Wow, this water is wet!" or "Hey, this pool is wet!"?

Although you probably meant the semantic content here being obvious, but still:

The first would still be in partitive: "Vau, tämä vesi on märkää!"
The second only is in nominative: "Hei, tämä allas on märkä!"

Here the aspect of divisibility/dividableness (or what might "jaollisuus" be in English?) plays the main role: pool is a unit (cannot be divided), while water is materia (can be divided). "Jäätelö" 'ice-cream' has both features: it is semantically complex and may refer to both materia and a unit.

AldenG wrote:It's still hard for us to develop any innate sense of the reaction you describe, though. That puzzles me, because there are other strong differences in Finnish compared to English that have come to feel second nature-ish to me, even when still subject to mistake.

I think it is due to these many aspectual reasons, hierarchy of which is not very clear, or at least not so concious. Maybe it is something like:
1. total vs. partial: Join veden 'I drank the water' vs. join vettä 'I drank some water'
http://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=925
2. influenced vs. uninfluenced: Viipaloin leivän 'I sliced the bread' vs. katsoin leipää 'I watched the bread'
http://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=927

Well, it is really complicated:
http://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=930

Finland Forum

Find information about moving to, living in and life in Finland