Use of the -na or essive case

[Satish]

Hi!

Apologies for being off the wire for a while. We were/are busy with our #1 poikka happily delivered during a snow storm last week!

Now to the matter at hand..

I am trying to understand the role of the ”–na” or essive case and came across this sentence which has me stumped.

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittajana olisi Aristoteles, hän aloittaisi luultavasti jotensakin näin:”On olemassa monta tapaa käyttää termiä ‘aristotelinen fysiikka’.

The first part I understand as – ”If Aristotle would be the writer of this article, he would probably start somewhat like this…”

The confusion I have is why have the essive case with kirjoittaa when you already have jos..olisi ? I know that the essive already indicates the state of something so why use it on top of jos..olisi?

I asked my finnish friend this and the best explanation he could give was that it gave a "time feeling" to this sentence, a longer time frame than just being the writer...

Hope someone can help!

[Pursuivant]

Its umm... a reflexive ... the time thing is there... it means... mmm... if it was Aristotle writing this here and now instead of me...

[Jukka Aho]

Hi!

Apologies for being off the wire for a while. We were/are busy with our #1 poikka happily delivered during a snow storm last week! :rainbow: :smile:

Congrats! :)

Now to the matter at hand..

I am trying to understand the role of the ”–na” or essive case and came across this sentence which has me stumped.

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittajana olisi Aristoteles, hän aloittaisi luultavasti jotensakin näin:”On olemassa monta tapaa käyttää termiä ‘aristotelinen fysiikka’.

The first part I understand as – ”If Aristotle would be the writer of this article, he would probably start somewhat like this…”

The confusion I have is why have the essive case with kirjoittaa when you already have jos..olisi ? I know that the essive already indicates the state of something so why use it on top of jos..olisi?

I think it is related to example (d) in VISK § 975. (“Subjektitarkoitteen ammattia, tehtävää tai asemaa luonnehditaan tavallisesti essiivisijaisella predikatiiviadverbiaalilla (d), joskus samassa lauseessa predikatiivinkin kanssa (e).”) “The occupation, job title, or rank of the referred subject is typically characterized by the usage of a predicative adverbial in the essive case.” Kirjoittaja could be thought of belonging to that category. (Compare to the example sentences in the article.)

This abstract also suggests the essive can mark a hypothetical role.

In this case, maybe it’s a combination of both.

I asked my finnish friend this and the best explanation he could give was that it gave a "time feeling" to this sentence, a longer time frame than just being the writer... :?

Hope someone can help!

I’m not sure if I catch what your friend might have meant by that...

Your original sentence could drop the essive and still wouldn’t change its meaning in any essential way. But consider these:

“Hän oli/toimi poliisina kaksi vuotta.” ← He worked as a policeman (...in the role of a policeman, acting his part as a policeman, going through the motions.)
“Hän oli poliisi kaksi vuotta.” ← He was a policeman: it was both the person that he was and the occupation he had.

The difference is quite subtle...

[Satish]

Hey, Thanks for the replies and best wishes!

Okay, I think what I am doing is not paying attention to the "role" that Aristotle would be taking and I was also confusing myself with the word order.

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittajana olisi Aristoteles = Jos Aristoteles olisi tämän artikkelin kirjoittajana = If Aristotle would be in the role of writer of this article (he normally is not a writer, but let us support that he is a writer and writes this article)

versus

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja olisi Aristoteles = Jos Aristoteles olisi tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja = If Aristotle would be the writer of this article (he normally is a writer and therefore could be the author of this one)

Am I heading in the right direction?

[Rob A.]

Yes...I think that's it..... to indicate the "role" being played. I think you might be able to state it without the essive case, but it would have a different sense to it. Maybe the native speakers could comment on that:

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja(n) oli Aristoteles, hän.... = "If Aristotle was the writer of this article, he..."

....I'm just guessing a bit here...and I'm not sure if kirjoittaja should be in the accusative ... I think maybe it should be..

[Jukka Aho]

Hey, Thanks for the replies and best wishes!

Okay, I think what I am doing is not paying attention to the "role" that Aristotle would be taking and I was also confusing myself with the word order.

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittajana olisi Aristoteles = Jos Aristoteles olisi tämän artikkelin kirjoittajana = If Aristotle would be in the role of writer of this article (he normally is not a writer, but let us support that he is a writer and writes this article)

versus

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja olisi Aristoteles = Jos Aristoteles olisi tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja = If Aristotle would be the writer of this article (he normally is a writer and therefore could be the author of this one)

Am I heading in the right direction? :ochesey:

You’re certainly on the right track. The first sentence places some extra emphasis on Aristotle taking on a certain role or capacity (in this case, the role and capacity of a writer) whereas the second sentence speculates, in a more straightforward manner, what he probably would have written had he been the author. (But in practice, it does not even matter whether Aristotle actually was a writer or not in his lifetime, in either case.)

[Jukka Aho]

Yes...I think that's it..... to indicate the "role" being played. I think you might be able to state it without the essive case, but it would have a different sense to it. Maybe the native speakers could comment on that:

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja(n) oli Aristoteles, hän.... = "If Aristotle was the writer of this article, he..."

....I'm just guessing a bit here...and I'm not sure if kirjoittaja should be in the accusative ... I think maybe it should be.. :?

Note that this is a copulative clause employing a “basic subject” (so-called perussubjektillinen predikatiivilause). The predicative is not an object and cannot exist in the accusative case.

It could exist in the similar-looking genitive case but the possessive interpretation which follows is rather weird:

Aristoteles [the subject in the nominative] oli tämän artikkelin kirjoittajan [NP predicative with the head word in the genitive].

Aristotles (speaking of him as if he was property) was owned by the writer of this article? The writer had Aristotles in his power or possession?

See the slides number 2, 8, 10, 11, 12 in this presentation.


But disregarding all that, the sentence...

Jos tämän artikkelin kirjoittaja oli Aristoteles, hän....

...where you left out the essive case and dropped the original conditional mood (-isi) alters the meaning a bit: now it seems to suggest Aristotle might actually have been the writer of the article. Maybe it’s only a theory which hasn’t been confirmed yet but the hypothesis (or the basis of speculation being laid out in the sentence) is that that could possibly turn out to be true. In that case, tämä artikkeli could not sensibly refer to the article you’re reading but some other previously mentioned article, of course.

[Rob A.]

...Note that this is a copulative clause employing a “basic subject” (so-called perussubjektillinen predikatiivilause). The predicative is not an object and cannot exist in the accusative case.

Heh....Yes, of course...I missed that....

And in my English sentence I should have used the subjunctive tense...."were" or "had been"....

[AldenG]

And in my English sentence I should have used the subjunctive tense...."were" or "had been"....

We know you meant mood...

[Rob A.]

And in my English sentence I should have used the subjunctive tense...."were" or "had been"....

We know you meant mood...

Yeah... I really should spend a bit more time on the principles of grammar rather than.....