Partitive, nominative and accusative
One distinction is called resultative versus irresultative.
Irresultative means the action is incomplete versus resultative which is complete.
Minä luin kirjaa. I was reading a/the book.
Minä luin kirjan. I read a/the book.
Minä luen kirjaa. I am reading a/the book.
Minä luen kirjan. I shall read a/the book.
The partitive does several jobs and remember if it is needed for meaning it takes priority.
So:
Minä söin jäätelöä. I ate/was eating (some) icecream.
Must be partitive to mean some. So the ate/was eating distinction possible with lukea kirja above is not possible.
Minä syön jäätelöä.
I'm eating (some) icecream.
I shall eat (some) icecream.
So here the present/future distinction is not possible unlike with lukea kirja.
So anyway, in addition to the "some", i.e. part of physically, meaning (hence partitive), there is the "part done" or "done without affecting the object" (irresultative) meaning.
Action done without affecting:
Minä ammun karhua. I shoot at a/the bear. (maybe miss)
Minä ammun karhun. I shoot a/the bear. (and hit it)
Irresultative means the action is incomplete versus resultative which is complete.
Minä luin kirjaa. I was reading a/the book.
Minä luin kirjan. I read a/the book.
Minä luen kirjaa. I am reading a/the book.
Minä luen kirjan. I shall read a/the book.
The partitive does several jobs and remember if it is needed for meaning it takes priority.
So:
Minä söin jäätelöä. I ate/was eating (some) icecream.
Must be partitive to mean some. So the ate/was eating distinction possible with lukea kirja above is not possible.
Minä syön jäätelöä.
I'm eating (some) icecream.
I shall eat (some) icecream.
So here the present/future distinction is not possible unlike with lukea kirja.
So anyway, in addition to the "some", i.e. part of physically, meaning (hence partitive), there is the "part done" or "done without affecting the object" (irresultative) meaning.
Action done without affecting:
Minä ammun karhua. I shoot at a/the bear. (maybe miss)
Minä ammun karhun. I shoot a/the bear. (and hit it)
Otatko mun korttia? Will you take my card (but return it later)?Hank W. wrote:I think the "anna kynää" conves the idea that the pen in question is in continuous possession of the person giving it, so it'll be returned shortly.... or something
Otatko mun kortin? Will you take my card (and keep it maybe forever)?
Is this right, Hank? I once said the second and was corrected as it would be returned later.
-
viqwr
Hank might still be in Brighton, so perhaps I'll give it a shot...AndrewS wrote:
Otatko mun korttia? Will you take my card (but return it later)?
Otatko mun kortin? Will you take my card (and keep it maybe forever)?
Is this right, Hank? I once said the second and was corrected as it would be returned later.
"Otatko mun korttia?" is not a common way to say. Perhaps in some rare occations one might say like that. Anyway, *it does not mean* "will you take my card but return it later?"
(I'v never before tried to theorize about why one says in particlar ways in Finnish - and I find this very difficult
)It's "Minä ammuin karhua" even if the bear is not wounded.viqwr wrote:Actually "Minä ammuin karhua" means that you only wounded it and may be looking at a one pissed-off karhu.AndrewS wrote: Minä ammun karhua. I shoot at a/the bear. (maybe miss)
Minä ammun karhun. I shoot a/the bear. (and hit it)"Minä ammuin karhun" means you shot it and as a result killed it.
