AJAA- partitive question!

[AldenG]

That "reductionist" approach of breaking things up in to the smallest bits and pieces and then generalizing rules about each bit and piece (what cases a verb expects, the quality of the noun, the meanings that partitive can reflect, etc.), then expecting people to synthesize all this information as needed into correct and idiomatic sentences, is certainly one approach, and the most common. That's sort of like explaining a Beethoven symphony by discussing each individual kind of chord (V 6/4, etc) and making rules about what chords are likely to be found as its neighbor, with little attention to line and phrase. That's been done, too. (Or as Einstein once quipped, by reducing it to a variation of wave pressure.) Or explaining a frog by laying out all the parts separately on a dissection table. And that's been done, too.

Yet at some point in each application of reductionism, the essence of the thing being reduced is lost.

Another approach is to study groups of sentences:

Sonta on ajettu pellolle.
Raha on annettu kirkolle.
Suola on lisätty veteen.

Sontaa on ajettu pellolle.
Rahaa on annettu kirkolle.
Suolaa on lisätty veteen.

...with a few more in each group, and groups contrasted one against the other, and what kinds of verbs and nouns do or don't fit, and why. You barely even need to talk about case names with this approach. (Notice how Jukka's most recent post above, like so many of his posts, clarifies so much while barely mentioning a case name.)

The meanings and variations are more intrinsic to each type of sentence per se than they are to a verb or a case. There are even sentences (can't call one to mind at will) that appear to anti-exemplify much of what we learn in reductionist isolation about a particular case or verb. Yet no fluent speaker has any discomfort about them.

Guess which approach is going to work better for kids. And which is going to work better for immigrant farm hands, street sweepers, or even people with intellectually demanding but non-analytical, non-engineering type backgrounds. (And IMO for people [like me] who DO have an analytical mind but tend to let it sidetrack them.) Guess who's going to be using and understanding real-world sentences sooner. And in time, such learners will venture farther and farther afield from the material they originally studied, but they will tend to do so correctly.

"But my mind is analytical; it needs the analytical approach," you may say. To which I reply with the story about the guy who lost his car keys in the parking lot and is looking under a street light for them. "Is this where you think you lost them," a passer-by asks. To which he replies, "No, but the light is much better over here."

Maybe instead of using the most practiced and comfortable approach, the mind needs to practice and learn a less familiar but more productive approach in order to be successful with this language. With a little help from a speaker, this can be done from books, TV, and daily conversational sources. Sure it would be great if there were more formal learning materials organized this way, but we're not helpless to create our own.

[Pursuivant]

Suomen kieliopilla on ajettu moni ulkomaalainen hulluksi!

[Rob A.]

Suomen kieliopilla on ajettu moni ulkomaalainen hulluksi!

....well, only those who think that the way things are done with English is the only way to properly "run" a language....

[cssc]

Yes, http://uusikielemme.fi/ is where I got that. But 'ajaa' isn't listed as a partitive verb in the Essential Grammar. Thanks for all the replies; it's been enlightening. Fortunately, I do not have an overly analytical mind, just want to know how to form these 'baby' sentences! So, if I just say, 'I am driving my car' THAT would be partitive because there is no specific destination, yes?

[Rob A.]

That "reductionist" approach of breaking things up in to the smallest bits and pieces and then generalizing rules about each bit and piece (what cases a verb expects, the quality of the noun, the meanings that partitive can reflect, etc.), then expecting people to synthesize all this information as needed into correct and idiomatic sentences, is certainly one approach, and the most common. That's sort of like explaining a Beethoven symphony by discussing each individual kind of chord (V 6/4, etc) and making rules about what chords are likely to be found as its neighbor, with little attention to line and phrase. That's been done, too. (Or as Einstein once quipped, by reducing it to a variation of wave pressure.) Or explaining a frog by laying out all the parts separately on a dissection table. And that's been done, too.

Yet at some point in each application of reductionism, the essence of the thing being reduced is lost.

Yet without some of us being inclined to this type of analytical thinking, things like the Hubble, the Big Bang Theory, the quantum entanglement theory would not be possible...we would still be sitting around campfires, sacrificing virgins or the first-born to make sure the sun will come up the next morning....

Speaking of Einstein...even he was mystified by some of the things he thought about....like the entanglement theory which I still can't quite grasp....He kind of mocked it ....spukhafte Fernwirkung...

Another approach is to study groups of sentences:

Sonta on ajettu pellolle.
Raha on annettu kirkolle.
Suola on lisätty veteen.

Sontaa on ajettu pellolle.
Rahaa on annettu kirkolle.
Suolaa on lisätty veteen.

...with a few more in each group, and groups contrasted one against the other, and what kinds of verbs and nouns do or don't fit, and why. You barely even need to talk about case names with this approach. (Notice how Jukka's most recent post above, like so many of his posts, clarifies so much while barely mentioning a case name.)

These examples had me a bit mystified once again about the workings of Finnish.....seeing the partitive used in what appears to be the subject of the sentence sends up red flags for me.....

But the clues are all there ...and to a native speaker it is obvious. In the example above, in grammatical terminology, Sontaa actually is not the subject of the sentence....it is the object, and pellolle is an indirect object. This is an example of the "fourth" person...a type of "passive" construction...an action performed by some indefinite person, in this case the unknown manure spreader....

It is equivalent to saying in English:

"One has spread the manure over the field."

The clues, of course, are seeing the partitive used at the beginning of the sentence and the passive past participle... ajettu.

I think this is a common construction in Finnish and it probably is enough for the learner to know that if they see the partitive at the beginning of a sentence they are likely dealing with some sort of passive action...they can then stumble around trying to decide if it is present, past, future [implied, of course, with words like , huomenna, tiistai, myöhempi]....

[Rob A.]

It just occurred to me....why are you using the verb, ajaa? I had it in my head you were talking about putting the sonta on the pelto, but I guess you mean the sonta is merely driven there.

Nevertheless a few more questions occurred to me ...and I have a vague recollection there is an answer but I can't remember it at the moment.
I suppose I could ask it this way.....

What would be wrong with this sentence...:

Sonnan on ajettu pellolle. ???

Also I think this would be a correct version:

"Maajussi on ajanut sonnan pellolle.", and this as well: "Maajussi on ajanut sontaa pellolle", but "Maajussi on ajanut sonta pellolle.", would be incorrect ...???

They would mean:

"The farmer drove the manure (all of it) to/onto the field." and "The farmer drove manure (some) to/onto the field."

[Upphew]

It just occurred to me....why are you using the verb, ajaa? I had it in my head you were talking about putting the sonta on the pelto, but I guess you mean the sonta is merely driven there.

Nevertheless a few more questions occurred to me ...and I have a vague recollection there is an answer but I can't remember it at the moment.
I suppose I could ask it this way.....

What would be wrong with this sentence...:

Sonnan on ajettu pellolle. ???

Sh*t's is driven on the field.

Also I think this would be a correct version:

"Maajussi on ajanut sonnan pellolle.", and this as well: "Maajussi on ajanut sontaa pellolle", but "Maajussi on ajanut sonta pellolle.", would be incorrect ...???

The last one would be correct if he would have driven sonnan, the manure, all of it or all of the amount of manure that was agreed to be driven there.

They would mean:

"The farmer drove the manure (all of it) to/onto the field." and "The farmer drove manure (some) to/onto the field."

Correct.

[Rob A.]

Nevertheless a few more questions occurred to me ...and I have a vague recollection there is an answer but I can't remember it at the moment.
I suppose I could ask it this way.....

What would be wrong with this sentence...:

Sonnan on ajettu pellolle. ???

Sh*t's is driven on the field.

Thanks Upphew

....But I'm still left wondering about this, as I am thinking Sonnan on ajettu pellolle" could be the "4th person" corollary of Hän on ajanut sonnan pellolle.....??

And, hey, nice picture....really adds to the picturesque rural vista....

Here's another version:



Always a pleasure to be downwind of one of these manure guns......And even nicer if it's clear, sunny day and you suddenly feel a bit of drizzle hit your face ....

[Edit: I was just reading a little more about the Finnish "passive"...still not a clear answer, though, yeah, I know it isn't correct....

Now here's a funny example of the Finnish "4th" person....apparently this would make no sense to a Finn:

Puu on puhallettu talolle. = "The tree was blown onto the house."...apparently you simply can't say it this way...if you want it to be passive you have to use a "work-around"....one of which is using the word, toimesta,...but I think it always has to be a human...it can never be understood, as in English, to be the wind.

Puu on puhallettu talolle jättiläisen toimesta. I assume mythical humans are still considered "human" in Finnish...but maybe not.

[Jukka Aho]

It just occurred to me....why are you using the verb, ajaa? I had it in my head you were talking about putting the sonta on the pelto, but I guess you mean the sonta is merely driven there.

Driven and dispensed/spread. Of course it could mean the farmer merely drove up and unloaded a big stinkin’ pile on the field, then left and went on to carry out some other business elsewhere. But usually there’s no such intermediate phase: the farmer drives on the field and spreads the manure in a single step.

Nevertheless a few more questions occurred to me ...and I have a vague recollection there is an answer but I can't remember it at the moment.
I suppose I could ask it this way.....

What would be wrong with this sentence...:

Sonnan on ajettu pellolle. ???

For you grammar robots out there:

“Passive verbs — Rule: If the verb is passive, then the total object will be in the Unmarked Accusative case if singular or the -T accusative if plural (i.e. the same as the equivalent nominal forms) unless an overriding partitive rule applies.” (Suomen kieli ulkomaalaisille — Objektin sijan valinta)

So if the verb is in the passive (4th person) form, the object cannot take the genitive(-like) “-N” accusative form — it must be unmarked for any situation where you’d otherwise use that form.

Also I think this would be a correct version:

"Maajussi on ajanut sonnan pellolle.", and this as well: "Maajussi on ajanut sontaa pellolle", but "Maajussi on ajanut sonta pellolle.", would be incorrect ...???

Correct (as Upphew already confirmed.)

They would mean:

"The farmer drove the manure (all of it) to/onto the field." and "The farmer drove manure (some) to/onto the field."

Yes. “The farmer has driven/spread the manure on the field” vs. “The farmer has driven/spread some manure on the field.”

Maajussi (from Jussi, a male name) is quite an informal word. It’s not downright offensive but could be seen as giving the text a bit humorous and disparaging tone. It lies somewhere in there between “Farmer Joe” and “hayseed”.

The neutral term is maanviljelijä. Or often just viljelijä — especially if the word needs to be repeated a lot and it’s obvious from the context you don’t mean a hampunviljelijä or some other kind of person practicing the art of agriculture, or horticulture.

[AldenG]

Yet without some of us being inclined to this type of analytical thinking, things like the Hubble, the Big Bang Theory, the quantum entanglement theory would not be possible...we would still be sitting around campfires, sacrificing virgins or the first-born to make sure the sun will come up the next morning....

I'm not saying analysis is not a worthy pursuit. Two of my three career tracks to date wouldn't exist without it. I'm just saying it has turned out to be a remarkably ineffective way of teaching and learning Finnish. It's perhaps more tolerable with other languages but probably not optimum for them, either.

Yes, before someone brings it up, I do understand and have made professional use of the notion of "learning styles;" but sometimes the nature of the subject is more determinative than the nature of the learner.

These examples had me a bit mystified once again about the workings of Finnish.....seeing the partitive used in what appears to be the subject of the sentence sends up red flags for me.....

Doesn't this very question make my point? You're having trouble making these simple and ordinary communications fit the predefined model in your brain. It's not the sentences that are confusing you; it's the model.

...probably is enough for the learner to know that if they see the partitive at the beginning of a sentence they are likely dealing with some sort of passive action...they can then stumble around trying to decide if it is present, past, future [implied, of course, with words like , huomenna, tiistai, myöhempi]....

Hmm, well, to each his own. I can't recall that I've ever approached a sentence like this in that fashion, not even in my earliest struggles. I want to see the verb before I give much thought to the window dressing around it. I doubt that my subconscious is yet making any decisions or assumptions based on the first word. I think I just sort of stack things up and look for patterns in the stack. Even if I were trying to do it with a computer program, that's how I'd approach it, much as one does when parsing computer languages. In Finnish you have even less choice about it than in parsing a computer language, I'd say, because you can't even always be sure which form, or possibly even which word, a combination of letters represents until you see some others around it.

In a way, those last few sentences say something I've said here in other ways in the past: that the meaning resides not in the individual words or even in the individual forms, but in the combinations of words or combinations of forms. And that's what these model sentences are: a certain paradigm with a certain meaning.

I understand that you want to see how these sentences fit into your universal concept of language, and that's all well and good. It's just a slower way of learning to use this particular language.

[AldenG]

To adapt an old marketing slogan from BASF:

Studying Finnish grammar doesn't make people speak Finnish -- it makes people speak Finnish better.

Finns know the language before they learn the grammar. But they typically have certain predictable errors of expression. Studying the whys and wherefores during the school years corrects these errors and teaches more advanced forms of expression.

It has its time and place. Just normally there is too much too soon.

[Pursuivant]

Now in those examples, you could in principle construct them thinking a and the in English.

Raha on annettu kirkolle.
THE coin has been given.... the specific money... granny gave me a fiver to put in the collection...

Rahaa on annettu kirkolle
A coin has been given... some random monies.... some old lady bestowed in her will ten grand...

Note that here "to the church" can be both a specific parish or "the mother church", that isn't specified as its assumed its known off some other context.

[jahasjahas]

Now here's a funny example of the Finnish "4th" person....apparently this would make no sense to a Finn:

Puu on puhallettu talolle. = "The tree was blown onto the house."...apparently you simply can't say it this way...if you want it to be passive you have to use a "work-around"....one of which is using the word, toimesta,...but I think it always has to be a human...it can never be understood, as in English, to be the wind.

Puu on puhallettu talolle jättiläisen toimesta. I assume mythical humans are still considered "human" in Finnish...but maybe not.

First of all, it should be talon päälle, not talolle.

The options are:
transitive sentence:
Tuuli puhalsi puun talon päälle. Jättiläinen puhalsi puun talon päälle.
intransitive sentence:
Puu puhaltui talon päälle.
passive sentence:
Puu puhallettiin talon päälle.

As you said, the passive version requires some animate actor to do the blowing. It can't be the wind.

In the intransitive sentence, the blower could be either the wind or a giant, I suppose, but in actual usage "puhaltaa" would never be used to describe the wind blowing a tree onto a house. A native speaker would say "Tuuli kaatoi puun talon päälle" or something similar. (And thus "Puu kaatui talon päälle." and "Puu kaadettiin talon päälle (vihaisten metsureiden toimesta).")

In some other contexts it's okay for the wind to do things through puhaltaminen: "Tuuli puhaltaa lehtiä."

[AldenG]

Now in those examples, you could in principle construct them thinking a and the in English.

Raha on annettu kirkolle.
THE coin has been given.... the specific money... granny gave me a fiver to put in the collection...

Rahaa on annettu kirkolle
A coin has been given... some random monies.... some old lady bestowed in her will ten grand...

Note that here "to the church" can be both a specific parish or "the mother church", that isn't specified as its assumed its known off some other context.

That also works for the manure.

If you say "The manure has been spread on the fields," you're explaining what happened to the big pile of manure that disappeared.

If you say "Manure has been spread on the fields," or "some manure has been spread on the fields" -- or more idiomatically, "they put [some] manure on the fields today," you're explaining the source of the pervasive odor. (There's that "cosmic they" again.)

Hercule Poirot would characteristically use the first (with "the") when he meant the second. It's one of those stereotyped foreigner-speaking-English errors of which authors are fond. So apparently partitive is just as difficult in English, or nearly so, as it is in Finnish. It just doesn't have such a clear name.

[AldenG]

Maybe it makes sense to look at Finnish more like bridge (the card game, that is) than like electronic circuit design or engineering.

There are certain accepted ways (as in English as well) of conveying certain meanings. So you learn a bunch of associations (and there aren't an impossible number of them) between phrase forms and meanings. In this case you can arrive at the probable meaning by analysis of each individual piece and the case in which it appears, but as with bidding in bridge, that is not always possible. Sometimes you just have to know the convention. And almost all of the time, knowing the conventions is a more productive approach, anyway. So you learn the case endings in order to recognize the sentence patterns -- not in order to deduce de novo the meaning of each sentence you encounter from detailed analysis of how each particular case form is functioning in a particular location in that sentence.

I think that in my case and the cases of many other learners, the long initial struggle is the process of transitioning from the mode of analyzing each piece separately (and searching for meaning by assembling the pieces) to the mode of recognizing phrasal patterns and associating meaning to the patterns more-or-less independent of the individual pieces. (Which helps explain why younger, less developed and less focused minds actually learn the language faster.) It would have been easier and quicker if I had realized in the beginning the nature of the transition I needed to accomplish. I was distracted and thrilled by all the glittery pieces and the challenge of mastering them individually.

And of everything I've ever written on FinlandForum about learning Finnish, I suspect those last two paragraphs are probably the most important.