partitive with negative description?

[cssc]

If i say "He isn't a nice man."

is 'nice man' partitive, or not?
I'm guessing it isn't, since the man is still there, but I wanted to be sure.
Thanks.

[jahasjahas]

The case of the predicative depends on the plurality and divisibility of the subject. Negativity doesn't matter, like it does with the case of the object (Minä löysin koiran. Minä en löytänyt koiraa.)

Hän on mukava mies. Hän ei ole mukava mies.

Pallo on punainen. Pallo ei ole sininen.

Vesi on märkää. Vesi ei ole kuivaa.

Hampaani ovat valkoiset. Hampaani eivät ole keltaiset.

Pilvet ovat valkoisia. Pilvet eivät ole keltaisia.

(The divisibility of plural nouns would warrant a long explanation, but I'm not going to type it out on my phone. Maybe someone else can do it if the OP wants to know more.)

I'm not quite sure what sort of change in meaning you were trying to achieve with the partitive ("the man is/isn't still there"?).

[cssc]

I think you might have misunderstood me. I knew the partitive has to be used when after a negation, as in 'there aren't any', which is why I said, in that sentence the man was still there, because the sentence was describing the abscence of niceness in the man, not that there weren't any nice men, in which case I know it would definitely be in the partitive...
Thank you for your reply.

[Jukka Aho]

I think you might have misunderstood me. I knew the partitive has to be used when after a negation, as in 'there aren't any', which is why I said, in that sentence the man was still there, because the sentence was describing the abscence of niceness in the man, not that there weren't any nice men, in which case I know it would definitely be in the partitive...
Thank you for your reply.

Note:

Hän ei ole mukava mies.
“He is not a nice man.”

But:

Hänessä ei ole mitään mukavaa.
Siinä miehessä ei ole mitään mukavaa.
“That man has no nice qualities (about him).” (at all, whatsoever)

[jahasjahas]

What I tried to point out was that there is no general "negation = partitive" rule that applies to all parts of speech or all types of sentences. The object of a sentence does take the partitive in most (though not all) negative sentences, but "mukava mies" in "Hän on/ei ole mukava mies." is a predicative, not an object.

[cssc]

OK, I think I got it.

[007]

Partitiive flowchart

Code: Select all

  ┌───────────────────────• 1. Negative
  Yes                       No
  ↓                         ↓
  2. State of Being • Yes ──┐
  No                        │
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 2. Partitive verb
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 3. Indefinite amount
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 4. Amount more than one
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 5. Fractional amount
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 6. Irresultative
  │                         No
  │                         ↓
  │                         7. Place of being • Yes ┐
  │                         No                      │
  │                         ↓                       │
  │                         8. State of being •┐    │
  │                         No                 │    │
  │                         ↓                  ↓    │
  │                         9. Imperative •────┐    │
  │                         No                 │    │
  │                         ↓                  ↓    │
  │                         10. Necessity •────┐    │
  │                         No                Yes   │
┌─↓─────────┐      ┌────────↓────┐ ┌───────────↓┐ ┌─↓───────────────────────────┐
│ Partitive │      │ Accusative  │ │ Nominative │ │ Locative word not an object │
└───────────┘      └─────────────┘ └────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────┘

source: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Suomen_kie ... an_valinta

[jahasjahas]

You also need the explanation to be able to read the flowchart:

Negative clauses — "Minä en syö omenaa."
Partitive verbs — "Minä rakastan omenaa." Minä rakastan yhtä omenaa. Minä rakastan kahta omenaa.
Indefinite amounts — "Minä syön osan omenaa."
Definite amounts that are more than one — "Minä syön kaksi omenaa."
Definite amounts that are fractional — "Minä syön puoli omenaa."
Irresultative verbs — "Minä etsin omenaa."
Place of being clauses — "Minulla on omena."
State of being clauses — "Hedelmä on omena."
Imperative clauses — "Anna omena."
Necessity clauses — "Sinun täytyy antaa omena."
Conditional?
Passive?

That's still a weird way to put it, as the chart correctly points out that the "omena" in "Minulla on omena." isn't the object, but fails to do the same with "Hedelmä on omena."

Anyway, if reading the chart helps you, I guess there's no harm done.

[Rob A.]

I'm a bit late in seeing this interesting thread...but I'll reply anyway.

In the OPs original sentence about the niceness ...or lack of it ...of the man, that sentence is an equational copula....in the simplest of examples in Finnish you would find that negation doesn't change anything in the grammatical equation.

However whether the use of the partitive is grammatically correct or not can get exceedingly complex....I would say most native speakers will know the correct version to use intuitively rather than academically.

If you are still interested in this topic, see this link...but be warned...it isn't an easy topic.

http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2007/lees.pdf

Essentially it's about the use of the partitive case in existential and copula sentences in various Balto-Finnic languages....and Finnish tends to diverge from the others in this area. So sometimes using the partitive in what appears to be a copula sentence will be correct.

Here's an excerpt from the summary of this report:

"The partitive complement in equational copula clauses is much more common in Finnish than in the other Balto-Finnic languages. The adjectival partitive complement is only found in Finnish and to a very limited extent in Karelian. The singular partitive complement in non-equational usage, indicating origin and quality, occurs, albeit infrequently, in all the languages as well as older texts, and hence appears to be of Proto-Finnic origin. The plural NP (noun phrase) and adjectival partitive complement appear to have developed in Finnish mainly in the 19th century, although an occasional example appeared earlier."

So there you have it...complicated....and maybe why Karelians and Estonians sometimes sound funny when they are speaking Finnish...

[Rob A.]

....and here's another interesting link I found:

http://people.uta.fi/~km56049/finnish/partreas.html

Some examples from the link:

All of these are existential sentences of location...and if the partitive isn't used correctly the wrong meaning will be conveyed.

Pöydällä on kynät ja paperi. "The pens and a sheet of paper are on the table."
Pöydällä on kynät ja paperia. "The pens and paper are on the table." (NB. The partitive is used with paperi because it is uncountable.)
Pöydällä on kyniä ja paperia. "There are some pens and paper on the table."
Pöydällä ei ole kyniä eikä paperia. "There aren't any pens or paper on the table."

...and this last example below...I'm afraid I can't fully explain...maybe someone else can:

Kynät ja paperi eivät ole pöydällä. "The pens and paper aren't on the table."

I suppose a possible explanation is that the negative doesn't matter here...gramatically the sentence is the same as the first example above...except negative.

[Rekkari]

...and this last example below...I'm afraid I can't fully explain...maybe someone else can:

Kynät ja paperi eivät ole pöydällä. "The pens and paper aren't on the table."

If you are referring to the subject not being in the partitive like the other examples, it's because the grammatical rule is that the subject can never be in the partititive except in 'there is/there are' type sentences. I think.

Or did I misunderstand your uncertainty?

[Rob A.]

...and this last example below...I'm afraid I can't fully explain...maybe someone else can:

Kynät ja paperi eivät ole pöydällä. "The pens and paper aren't on the table."

If you are referring to the subject not being in the partitive like the other examples, it's because the grammatical rule is that the subject can never be in the partititive except in 'there is/there are' type sentences. I think.

Or did I misunderstand your uncertainty?

It's probably as simple as that...if the sentence is re-ordered in this way it's no longer an existential sentence and therefore the nominative would be used and the verb would agree. The sentence is simply a locational copula sentence.

In the first link I posted above, the author does discuss all of this and provides a list of properties which characterize an existential sentence....and also mentions that the distinction between existential and non-existential sentences is not sharp.