Working through Leena Silfverberg’s “Harjoituskirja – suomen kielen jatko-opetusta varten” (Finn Lectura 2007), I came across an exercise for the comitative case (page 58) and to convert noun phrases into them. In particular, this question / sentence surprised me:
Lapsi katsoi minua (SUURI, SININEN SILMÄ).
My answer to this would be:
Lapsi katsoi minua suurine, sinisine silmineen.
The child looked at me with her big, blue eyes.
I would never have thought of using the comitative case. Instead, I would have used the instructive case and written:
Lapsi katsoi minua suurin, sinisin silmin.
The child looked at me with big, blue eyes.
What is the real difference between the two? It can't just be the “her” can it?
suuret, siniset silmät
Re: suuret, siniset silmät
I'm certainly no expert.
My first reaction was that I would have gone with you: suurin silmin, sinisin silmin, kirkkain silmin, etc.
But I suspect two things are operating here. One is that it was an exercise and she was looking for uses of comitative. Another is that the additional adjective changes it more to a question of describing the eyes ("with SUCH eyes") than of HOW, in what manner, she looked at you. Certainly suurin silmin and possibly kirkkain silmin describe a mood or state of mind and a manner of looking. One could make that argument for a certain connotation of sinisin silmin also. But when you start tacking on the adjectives it becomes more about the description of the eyes. They become more noun-like in the sentence and less adverbial (and I think of instructive as making nouns and adjectives work like adverbs).
That's my intuitive reaction but I can't claim any authority behind it.
My first reaction was that I would have gone with you: suurin silmin, sinisin silmin, kirkkain silmin, etc.
But I suspect two things are operating here. One is that it was an exercise and she was looking for uses of comitative. Another is that the additional adjective changes it more to a question of describing the eyes ("with SUCH eyes") than of HOW, in what manner, she looked at you. Certainly suurin silmin and possibly kirkkain silmin describe a mood or state of mind and a manner of looking. One could make that argument for a certain connotation of sinisin silmin also. But when you start tacking on the adjectives it becomes more about the description of the eyes. They become more noun-like in the sentence and less adverbial (and I think of instructive as making nouns and adjectives work like adverbs).
That's my intuitive reaction but I can't claim any authority behind it.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.
-
Pursuivant
- Posts: 15089
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:51 am
- Location: Bath & Wells
Re: suuret, siniset silmät
Its a bit of an "emphasis issue". It can just be the “her”, as opposed to just regular big blue eyes, hers are especially special.
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."
Something wicked this way comes."
Re: suuret, siniset silmät
Don't know whether this presentation has been on Kielikoulu before, but it offers a really good discussion on the comitative case and the fact that it does NOT mean "kanssa" as I have previously thought..
Re: suuret, siniset silmät
So I asked the wife if suurine, sinisine silmineen didn't sort of suggest the girl carries some big blue eyeballs with her in a jar of formaldehyde. She laughed and said that to her it sounds more like they accompany her on a leash, and that someone should illustrate the thread with a picture of the girl accompanied by two big eyeballs at least half as big as she herself.
Thus at least one Finn, a former language teacher, thinks the comitative suggests a separateness and a possibility of not being accompanied by the thing, whatever it is -- a possibility that is lacking in the case of eyes. In her opinion, the sentence is just wrong and nobody of her generation would use it.
Then I suggested that if you had to say such a thing, wouldn't you use suurilla, sinisillä silmillään, which would still sound somewhat awkward. And she said yes, but it's more something you'd say about a microscope than your own eyes.
So I suspect it is a foreignism that slipped into the book. And I'm starting to have a sense of déjà vu about it and wondering if we didn't discuss that exact example here a few years back.
Thus at least one Finn, a former language teacher, thinks the comitative suggests a separateness and a possibility of not being accompanied by the thing, whatever it is -- a possibility that is lacking in the case of eyes. In her opinion, the sentence is just wrong and nobody of her generation would use it.
Then I suggested that if you had to say such a thing, wouldn't you use suurilla, sinisillä silmillään, which would still sound somewhat awkward. And she said yes, but it's more something you'd say about a microscope than your own eyes.
So I suspect it is a foreignism that slipped into the book. And I'm starting to have a sense of déjà vu about it and wondering if we didn't discuss that exact example here a few years back.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.
Re: suuret, siniset silmät
You know, author Stephen King says that the reason he is so prolific in his genre is because he has the mind of a 10-year old -- which he keeps in a jar on his desk.
As he persisted, I was obliged to tootle him gently at first and then, seeing no improvement, to trumpet him vigorously with my horn.
-
jahasjahas
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:08 am
Re: suuret, siniset silmät
I don't have a problem with any of the three options. I suppose "suurilla, sinisillä silmillään" would be the one I'd use.
Or maybe "Joku kakara tuijotti mua junassa."
Or maybe "Joku kakara tuijotti mua junassa."