Just a couple of corrections..
nakeä = nähdä
ottaa
rak[t]entamisen (t doesn't belong in there)
tekee = tehdä
luen kirjaa, mutta en ymmärrän "luen kirjan"....
Yes, the general idea here is correct (but Hank says it would be plural. To Hank - what about some apple not some apples?) . Another good example is with beer: the word "olut" can be uncountable stuff or one countable (glass of) beer. So:smoo wrote:The examples in the text books for ostaa usually relate to groceries, and seem designed to explain the the difference between partitive and accusitive rather than the nature of that particuar verb.
e.g.:
Minä ostan omenan
Minä ostan kahvia
I buy a single apple
I buy some coffee
Now, presumably I could also say "minä ostan omenaa" to indicate that I bought some apple (it might be mashed or something). (Or can I?). So am I correct to think that with this verb, the difference between using a partitive and an accusitive object simply indicates the nature of the object, and doesn't provide information about whether the buying was now or in the future? And if I say "minä ostin omenaa" instead of "minä ostin omenan" am I making this same distinction for a past action, rather than saying "I bought" as opposed to "I have bought"?
Minä ostan olutta = I (shall) buy (some) beer
Minä ostan oluen = I (shall) buy a beer
This is is why I made the point of 3 verb types:
1) Some have partitive always
2) Some have accusative-genitive always (unless verb negative)
3) Some may take one or the other (though again, if negative partitive)
In 3 the nature of the object might require one or the other (olutta versus oluen, leaving future/present ambiguous). But lukea gives an example where one means future (luen kirjan) and the other present (luen kirjaa).
To the Finns: I thought omenia and omenoita are both fairly standard? Then the genitive plural is omenien or omenoiden. So what's the dialectal distribution?
Thanks Andrew, that all makes complete sense.
soda said:
Usually when I have the most problems in langauge classes it's because the teacher is not giving us the whole story in an attempt to make it easier, and I can tell something just doesn't make sense. That distracts me and I then can't take anything in.
Yes, I know I'd find it easier if I thought about it less and just did it, but that's not me I'm afraid....
soda said:
Unfortunately I can't think that way; that's probably why foreign languages have always been my worst subject. I can't learn anything "just because it is" if there's any possibility of there being an underlying structure I can find. Apart from anything else I would find it excruciatingly boring! It's only the weird and wonderful grammatical oddities of Finnish that keep me going...I think it's very common when learning a language to try and over-think the logic.
It's like this folks - languages don't always require logic. So forget the "why". It just is.
Usually when I have the most problems in langauge classes it's because the teacher is not giving us the whole story in an attempt to make it easier, and I can tell something just doesn't make sense. That distracts me and I then can't take anything in.
Yes, I know I'd find it easier if I thought about it less and just did it, but that's not me I'm afraid....
-
Hank W.
- The Motorhead
- Posts: 29973
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:00 pm
- Location: Mushroom Mountain
- Contact:
whereas
The unwise man is awake all night,
and ponders everything over;
when morning comes he is weary in mind,
and all is a burden as ever
also
Wise in measure let each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
for never the happiest of men is he
who knows much of many things.
The unwise man is awake all night,
and ponders everything over;
when morning comes he is weary in mind,
and all is a burden as ever
also
Wise in measure let each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
for never the happiest of men is he
who knows much of many things.
Cheers, Hank W.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
For many e.g. English speakers this sort if stuff is maybe confusing or uncertain and to say, oh well, just learn it as you go along isn't here the most effective. There are ideas to be got but unfortutely a simple set of rules doesn't really suffice. So get the the ideas, the principles, and go on from there observing usage.smoo wrote:Thanks Andrew, that all makes complete sense.
soda said:Unfortunately I can't think that way; that's probably why foreign languages have always been my worst subject. I can't learn anything "just because it is" if there's any possibility of there being an underlying structure I can find. Apart from anything else I would find it excruciatingly boring! It's only the weird and wonderful grammatical oddities of Finnish that keep me going...I think it's very common when learning a language to try and over-think the logic.
It's like this folks - languages don't always require logic. So forget the "why". It just is.
Usually when I have the most problems in langauge classes it's because the teacher is not giving us the whole story in an attempt to make it easier, and I can tell something just doesn't make sense. That distracts me and I then can't take anything in.
Yes, I know I'd find it easier if I thought about it less and just did it, but that's not me I'm afraid....
If you were to ask about the -han, pa, -kin enclitics the guidance would have to be even rougher than this (there it's getting like you have to learn from context because there's so much overlap).
Referring to your first post, the thing is don't ever give up if you are serious. You don't learn a foreign language in X years and then "just know it". You would forget or at least your ability would deteriorate badly if you don't use it regularly. If you are serious it means "a language for life". Realistically you should expect to use it for real every week even if not every day, and that even if you only read some. And that's to maintain the ability let alone learn it in the first place. So to be serious, never give up: this is key.
-
Suomlainen
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:35 am
- Location: Rauma Finland
sry just wanting to correct somethingsoda wrote:I think it's very common when learning a language to try and over-think the logic.
It's like this folks - languages don't always require logic. So forget the "why". It just is.
In both Finnish and English, verbs indicate what follows them. So we say "look at" and not "look of".
In Finnish many verbs require akkusatiivi. They just do. Forget why they do, anymore than you know why "at" follows "look".
Some examples of verbs often requiring akkusatiivi:
tuntea
näkeä
ottaa
tavata
muistaa
unohtaa
aloittaa i.e. mä(/minä) aloitan talon rakentamisen
tekee
ostaa
kutsua
-
Suomlainen
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:35 am
- Location: Rauma Finland
Näihän se on mutta tota äidinkieltä ei oo kamalasti tullu opiskeltuu, näkeä todellakin kuulostaa tökeröltä mutta ymmärrettävä se joka tapauksessa on.enk wrote:Paitsi että ton pitäisi olla "nähdä" ja "tehdä". Hmmh, niin kuin YodaSuomlainen wrote:sry just wanting to correct somethingnäkeä
tekee
sanoo, "suomalainenko olet?"
-enk
Näkeä sounds a bit "odd" like the post above tells I would more likely use those ones.
ja kyllä olen suomalainen, vähän slangia toi Suomlainen mutta tarkoituksella
Kesä on vihdoin täällä!
Pedant Alert!!
How could I write "otta" instead of "ottaa" or "mä" instead of "minä"?? What was I thinking?! I shall whip myself at once!!
Good lord folks - I was just trying to point out that quite a lot of verbs in Finnish requite the akkusatiivi regardless of meaning, i.e. it is a system, not a meaning-inflected issue.
How could I write "otta" instead of "ottaa" or "mä" instead of "minä"?? What was I thinking?! I shall whip myself at once!!
Good lord folks - I was just trying to point out that quite a lot of verbs in Finnish requite the akkusatiivi regardless of meaning, i.e. it is a system, not a meaning-inflected issue.
Hey, we never said we weren't and I readily admit to being one.soda wrote:Pedant Alert!!
BTW, from MOT:
Funny, MOT doesn't have pilkunnussija in there. Bad dictionary, bad!pilkunviilaaja halv., leik. tekstin tm. yksityiskohtiin takertuva henkilö, hiustenhalkoja.
Fortunately wikitionary saves the day:
-enkpilkunnussija
Substantiivi pilkunnussija
pikkutarkka, turhan tarkka, (henkilöstä). Yhdyssana genetiivimuodosta pilkun ja sanasta nussija.
