small questions from the news

[garoowood]

so this is actually elvytettyä häntä eikä saatu? elvytettyä-a past passive participle in partitive acts as a premodifier to häntä is the subject; and eikä saatu is the verb.

en saanut vettä kannettua
en saanut kahvia juotua
en saanut naista elvyttettyä

get the difference?
en saanut kannettua vettä
en saanut vettä kannettua
so there is the first meaning to the second if you stretch it poetic

I couldn't get the water carried
I couldn't get the coffee drunk
I couldn't get the woman resucitated

so then, the emphasis changes from me to what
vettä en saanut kannettua (kannoin puita)
kahvia en saanut juotua (join viinaa)
naista en saanut elvytettyä (elvytin miehen)

the woman, I could not get resucitated

so then instead of me its that somebody doing things

the woman could not be resucitated
naista ei saatu elvytetyksi
or as RobA would say; the woman could be not begotten into the state of liveness

This is just perfect, I got to take a note of it. So this is how you say "get something done"? saada nainen elvytetty-get the woman rescued.
Can you also do me a favor with "mitä vastaavien ongelmien välttämiseksi tullaan tekemään", how to use and translate "tullaan"? Maybe I get it: it just implies the subject is someone, people?

[Upphew]

Epäselvät maalit ja filmaukset puhuttavat pelaajia, yleisöä, mutta myös erotuomareita Etelä-Afrikan MM-kisoissa.

Ok, so filmaus actually means play-acting, not shooting here.
But why puhuttaa-make someone talk? Would puhuvat from puhua suffices?

Pelaajat ja yleisö, mutta myös erotuomarit, puhuvat epäselvistä maaleista ja filmauksista. But now it is not such a big deal, they just happen to talk about them, just now, without need nor reason. In original sentence the goals and players dying is the unignorable reason for the chitchat.

[garoowood]

Epäselvät maalit ja filmaukset puhuttavat pelaajia, yleisöä, mutta myös erotuomareita Etelä-Afrikan MM-kisoissa.

Ok, so filmaus actually means play-acting, not shooting here.
But why puhuttaa-make someone talk? Would puhuvat from puhua suffices?

Pelaajat ja yleisö, mutta myös erotuomarit, puhuvat epäselvistä maaleista ja filmauksista. But now it is not such a big deal, they just happen to talk about them, just now, without need nor reason. In original sentence the goals and players dying is the unignorable reason for the chitchat.

Ok, I misunderstood the subject and object the other way around.
Indefinte goals and play-actings, in the South Africa's World Championship games, make players, spectators, but also referees chat.

[Pursuivant]

Can you also do me a favor with "mitä vastaavien ongelmien välttämiseksi tullaan tekemään", how to use and translate "tullaan"? Maybe I get it: it just implies the subject is someone, people?

The passive voice in Finnish is quite usual, and as its that elusive "someone" doing it tullaan tekemään "comes to be done" , I'd say in English it is will/shall be done, the Finns just won't get committed . - in colloquial it is used with first person plural though, so that might throw you off a bit with the spoken language and imperative... tulla, mennä..

Laivalle mennään hyvissä ajoin. Kotiin tullaan ajoissa. (passive)
Me mennään laivalle. Me tullaan kotiin. (colloquial)
Mennään laivalle!

[Pursuivant]

Epäselvät maalit ja filmaukset puhuttavat pelaajia, yleisöä, mutta myös erotuomareita Etelä-Afrikan MM-kisoissa.

Unclear goals and oscar performances cause verbal diarrea among players, spectators, and also referees in the Vuvuzela Concert 2010.

[Rob A.]

en saanut vettä kannettua
en saanut kahvia juotua
en saanut naista elvyttettyä

get the difference?
en saanut kannettua vettä
en saanut vettä kannettua
so there is the first meaning to the second if you stretch it poetic

I couldn't get the water carried
I couldn't get the coffee drunk
I couldn't get the woman resucitated

so then, the emphasis changes from me to what
vettä en saanut kannettua (kannoin puita)
kahvia en saanut juotua (join viinaa)
naista en saanut elvytettyä (elvytin miehen)

I suppose you could show things this way:

"The water was carried."
Vettä (...or would it be vesi???) kannettiin.

"The water did not get carried."
Vettä/vesi ei saatu kannettu (..or kannettua???)

"The water did not get carried by me."
Vetta/vesi ei saatu kannettu/a minun toimesta.

Thus:

Naista/nainen ei saataisi elvytetty/ä helikopteri Ilmarin miehistön toimesta.
....but I just not sure whether the partitive or nominative should be used...I think it should be nominative...even for the example with vesi...unless it's made clear it's only a portion of the water in question....

[garoowood]

en saanut vettä kannettua
en saanut kahvia juotua
en saanut naista elvyttettyä

get the difference?
en saanut kannettua vettä
en saanut vettä kannettua
so there is the first meaning to the second if you stretch it poetic

I couldn't get the water carried
I couldn't get the coffee drunk
I couldn't get the woman resucitated

so then, the emphasis changes from me to what
vettä en saanut kannettua (kannoin puita)
kahvia en saanut juotua (join viinaa)
naista en saanut elvytettyä (elvytin miehen)

I suppose you could show things this way:

"The water was carried."
Vettä (...or would it be vesi???) kannettiin.

"The water did not get carried."
Vettä/vesi ei saatu kannettu (..or kannettua???)

"The water did not get carried by me."
Vetta/vesi ei saatu kannettu/a minun toimesta.

Thus:

Naista/nainen ei saataisi elvytetty/ä helikopteri Ilmarin miehistön toimesta.
....but I just not sure whether the partitive or nominative should be used...I think it should be nominative...even for the example with vesi...unless it's made clear it's only a portion of the water in question....

I think they all should be vettä. Vesi is accountable and material word, so vettä should be used in the first sentence. The second and third carry negative meaning, so again vettä should be there.
But sometimes Finns use uncountable words in their plural form also which is quite different from English, like vedet, which means different kinds of water; or when you pour it into different bottles.

[garoowood]

... Vuvuzela Concert 2010.

New denomination is just compendious. I guess it must be a bad cultrual experience for the live audience in the stadium.
They are made in China in a manual workshop.

[garoowood]

Oikeus katsoi anastetun 85 000 euron omaisuuden arvon niin huomattavaksi ja teon erityisen suunnitelmalliseksi, että vankeustuomion tuli olla ehdoton.

I suppose jkn tulla olla means sth. has to be, one kind of necessary clauses in Finnish? Can sb. explain it, though someone may have done it in one thread posted before, I couldn't find it.

What I know is:
Active: jnk pitää; jnk täytyy, jnk on pakko; jnk on+present participle passive
Passive: jkn pitää; jkn täytyy

Sulkavuoreen on poliisin mukaan kiellosta huolimatta kertynyt yleisöä seuraamaan tilannetta.

poliisin mukaan--according to police
kiellosta huolimatta--regardless of the ban
kertynyt yleisöä--accumulated publics(I guess partitive is used because of indefinite quantity?)
Sulkavuoreen on--into mountain Sulka there is
seuraamaan tilannetta--to follow the situation(well I don't know why third infinitive illative is used here)

Or if "on kertynyt yleisöä seuraamaan tilannetta" is analysed as "it has accumulated publics to follow the situation" and kertyä request to use seuraamaan? Why Sulkavuoreen not in inessive but illative?

[Rob A.]

en saanut vettä kannettua
en saanut kahvia juotua
en saanut naista elvyttettyä

get the difference?
en saanut kannettua vettä
en saanut vettä kannettua
so there is the first meaning to the second if you stretch it poetic

I couldn't get the water carried
I couldn't get the coffee drunk
I couldn't get the woman resucitated

so then, the emphasis changes from me to what
vettä en saanut kannettua (kannoin puita)
kahvia en saanut juotua (join viinaa)
naista en saanut elvytettyä (elvytin miehen)

I suppose you could show things this way:

"The water was carried."
Vettä (...or would it be vesi???) kannettiin.

"The water did not get carried."
Vettä/vesi ei saatu kannettu (..or kannettua???)

"The water did not get carried by me."
Vetta/vesi ei saatu kannettu/a minun toimesta.

Thus:

Naista/nainen ei saataisi elvytetty/ä helikopteri Ilmarin miehistön toimesta.
....but I just not sure whether the partitive or nominative should be used...I think it should be nominative...even for the example with vesi...unless it's made clear it's only a portion of the water in question....

I think they all should be vettä. Vesi is accountable and material word, so vettä should be used in the first sentence. The second and third carry negative meaning, so again vettä should be there.
But sometimes Finns use uncountable words in their plural form also which is quite different from English, like vedet, which means different kinds of water; or when you pour it into different bottles.

I think you mean that vesi is often considered an uncountable noun... I was advised later that you could use either vesi or vettä , depending on the "nature" of the particular water in question.... The nominative would mean all of the water, in question; and vettä , if you mean some water or a portion of the water in question...

[Pursuivant]

....but I just not sure whether the partitive or nominative should be used...

yours wa totally päinvittua, but I am drunk so no vitunselitys

[Pursuivant]

[quote="garoowood"][quote]Oikeus katsoi anastetun 85 000 euron omaisuuden arvon niin huomattavaksi ja teon erityisen suunnitelmalliseksi, että vankeustuomion tuli olla ehdoton.

The Court saw that the pilfered property of 85000 euros value being so high, and the act to been specially planned, so that the jail sentence shall be without a clause.

OK, so now this is phraseology - there is no such thing as "parole" in Finnish. The re is either a sentence in jail. or a sentence with "clauses". "Unclaused" sentence is what you get you do not have to ge "sit in the castle". A sentence with a "clause" is you shall sit one year, on the clause, if you offend within your time... You cannot translate phrases with grammar.

[Rob A.]

....but I just not sure whether the partitive or nominative should be used...

yours wa totally päinvittua, but I am drunk so no vitunselitys

Yeah...I'm not surprised....but I'm trying....

I'll go through this again and see if I can clean it up a bit....

"Water was carried."
Vettä kannettiin.....this is, I think, just a simple passive sentence...the "4th person"... In English, the doer of the action is implied..."water' is the object of the sentence. An active statement would be something like:..."It carried the water."...

"Water did not get carried."
Vettä ei saatu kannettua.....kannettua is in the partitive, because this is a negative statement. I believe, though I'm not totally sure, that the English sentence is still in the passive voice... and so "water" is still the object of the sentence. The Finnish sentence is in the passive voice....saatu is the passive past participle of saada...

"Water did not get carried by me."
Vettä ei saatu kannettua minun toimesta.....again all in the passive voice...but I would like to hear from a native speaker how else this might be said in Finnish.....

Thus:

Naista ei saattu elvytettyä helikopteri Ilmarin miehistön toimesta.

....and same here... Is there a better way of saying this?? In my post above, I should have used saatu...the passive past participle, not saataisi... a conditional present participle....

[EP]

"Water did not get carried by me."
Vettä ei saatu kannettua minun toimesta..

Vettä ei saatu kannettua minun toimestani. Grammatically right, but sounds clumsy. En onnistunut kantamaan vettä. or simple Minä en kantanut vettä.

Naista ei saattu elvytettyä helikopteri Ilmarin miehistön toimesta.

Helikopteri Ilmarin miehistö ei onnistunut elvyttämään naista. Much better. OR Helikopteri Ilmarin miehistö epäonnistui naisen elvyttämisessä.

[Pursuivant]

I'll go through this again and see if I can clean it up a bit....

That was much better, the problem is this whole formation is not used really that often, but its a grammatical thing.

"Water did not get carried by me."
Vettä ei saatu kannettua minun toimesta.....again all in the passive voice...but I would like to hear from a native speaker how else this might be said in Finnish.....

Minä en saanut vettä kannettua. that minun toimestani version is a bit awkward phrase you might see in some legal text where people try to appear pompous.

Note the "saada" might be sometimes used as "I was not let" as in "may do", as well as "can do" so that might confuse the heck out of you if you're on one track. Lapset eivät saa kantaa vettä. vs Lapset eivät saa vettä kannettua.
:

Naista ei saattu elvytettyä helikopteri Ilmarin miehistön toimesta.

....and same here... Is there a better way of saying this?? In my post above, I should have used saatu...the passive past participle, not saataisi... a conditional present participle....

Well, it still sounds a bit pompy. Maybe I should find you one of these books on "proper writing style" as in modern style, as those old grammars sometimes make people write like it was 1938.