paarmoja

[Rob A.]

2. Pihalla on poika.....This, the authors claim, is an existential sentence and although Finnish is relatively free with word order, this sentence would be interpreted as:
..."There is a boy in the yard."
Is this the "default" interpretation?

Yes, that would be the default. You look outside and see a boy: "Pihalla on poika", you watch him to lick the metal railing and declare: "Poika on ihan pihalla!"

Thanks...a new idiom..."totally in the yard"... Equivalent to the expression, at least in North America..."totally out to lunch"...

...and, hey, I remember being talked into licking a metal railing when I was about ten years old....I guess that's a universal childhood experience in cold countries...

They also state in the text following, that negative statements would actually make this existential construction clearer....

Poika ei ole pihalla.
and Pihalla ei ole poikaa.

I suppose the logical question I should ask is if, Pihalla ei ole poika, is also grammatically correct. And if so, I assume it would simply be a declarative sentence emphasizing the yard...??

Pihalla ei ole poika isn't enoug by itself, Pihalla ei ole poika vaan X, X being something you thought to be a boy is OK.

This is really helpful....it drives home the idea that if you are sounding "definite"...using the accusative or nominative ....there should be some sort of "message" involved. With the partitive you can be "general" and "vague".... Pihalla ei ole poika vaan...on norsu....

Finally, here is a sentence that confuses me even more....apparently it is an existential sentence:

Utta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle nopeasti.

Despite what the paper says I think you would have to interpret this as:
..."There quickly grew a new forest in the cleared space."

...apparently using the allative case ending ...tilalle... is significant, and that somehow this implies that the verb ....kasvoi is about coming into existence, rather than actually growing in an incremental way....????

Well, if you think about it, once you cut all the trees there isn't forest anymore. After 10 years you come back and see that on the same place there grows something you can already call trees. Thus new forest came into existence, there was nothing gradual about that, first: no forest, next: forest. New forest grew instead of the old one, and it did it fast!

If I understand this properly, then the direct statement would have to be:
Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun tilalla nopeasti....in other words, tilalla in the adessive case....

You could understand that as New forest grew fast at the farm of the beaten one. Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun paikalla nopeasti. Now the forest grew fast at the place where some other forest were cut down.

Hmm....I think I'm starting to follow this...
So what would using the adessive case imply???
Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalla nopeasti.

....the paper says this would not be correct with an existential "theme"..that is, Uutta metsää
...???

[Upphew]

Hmm....I think I'm starting to follow this...
So what would using the adessive case imply???
Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalla nopeasti.

....the paper says this would not be correct with an existential "theme"..that is, Uutta metsää
...???

Wikipedia seems to indicate adessive ending as lla.

You example parses still in my mind as a something that happened in the farm of the beaten one, so maybe the paper is correct. I'll try to check this again after I get some caffeine running in my veins.

edit.
I still interpret that tila as in farm, not place/space or instead.

[Jukka Aho]

Thanks

I also found this in the same paper....

1. Poika on pihalla....the simple direct statement.
..."The boy is in the yard."

Could this be interpeted as: "A boy...."?

The question is more meaningful for the purposes of translation than the usage of Finnish but I imagine it maybe could be translated with “a boy” if it were, say, the opening sentence of a novel, introducing this boy character to the reader. But I think you would often use the definite article even then... (creating the impression the narrator full well knows who this boy is but the reader is left in the dark, joining the story in the middle of action, and only about to figure it out!) As Finnish does not really have articles, the “article-wise” interpretation of these kind of sentences is, ultimately, context-dependent. As the paper doesn’t provide any context, it is hard to give definite answers.

Ordinarily, this construction would probably have to be translated as “the boy”, though.

And if not, what would have to be written?

Pihalla on poika.

Or if you want to be explicitly indefinite about it:

(in a dialog/conversation:) Pihalla on yks(i) poika. (yks, yksi referring not to the number of boys but serving the same function as the English indefinite article)
(in literary narrative:) Pihalla on eräs poika.
(in stilted old-fashioned literary narrative:) Pihalla on muuan poika.

But writing these in the present tense somehow bothers me. You rarely hear these kind of indefinite expressions being used in the present tense. Usually when you’re introducing “a boy” in a conversation, you’re telling about things which have already happened... so the sentences would take the imperfect tense or some other past tense.

Say, if you were at your neighbor’s – sitting at the table and having some coffee and pulla – and then glanced out of her window to notice some strange boy in the yard, you could grab the attention of your host by say something like:

Tuolla sun etupihallas muuten joku poika kaivaa just nyt kuoppaa kukkapenkkiin.
or: Tuolla sinun etupihallasi joku poika muuten kaivaa juuri nyt kuoppaa kukkapenkkiin. (muuten = “by the way”, when used this way)

Now, you could translate this with “some boy”... but just as well with “a boy”, if it feels more natural.

In spoken language, new subjects are often introduced with yks(i) if they’re known to you (by now) but not to the others, and with joku, jokin if they are (or were) unknown to you, too. Known subjects are often marked with se or tää (tämä).

— Ajoin pyörällä kaikessa rauhassa, kun yks mies tuli valittamaan suu vaahdossa, että pyörää pitää taluttaa puistossa. (kaikessa rauhassa = roughly “minding my own business”)
— Älä!? Mitä varten? (älä, in this kind of a context = “You don’t say!”)
— En mä tiedä. Se mies oli ihan raivona. (olla raivona [jostakin]/[jollekin] = “to be mad, infuriated [about something]/[to someone]”)

If you feel the urge to explicitly mark the “missing” articles, in literary language, you could use eräs for “a” and kyseinen for “the”... the latter being the equivalent of “the _____ in question”. Or sometimes edellämainittu (“aforementioned”) or aikaisemmin mainittu could do the trick as well. But usually that kind of explicity is used sparingly.

2. Pihalla on poika.....This, the authors claim, is an existential sentence and although Finnish is relatively free with word order, this sentence would be interpreted as:
..."There is a boy in the yard."
Is this the "default" interpretation?

Yes. Existential sentences, by their (Finnish) definition, typically introduce new topics to the listener/reader, so when you’re using something that is clearly in such format, it strongly suggests this is “a boy”, mentioned the first time. Nonetheless, in spoken language you’d probably say “Pihalla on joku poika” if you just noticed him and are unsure about who he is.

[Rob A.]

Thanks....

Here are a couple more sentences....the point here is that the partitive form strongly "demands quantification". And so the natural inclination, at least with native speakers, is to interpret "appropriate" adverbs...if at all possible...such that they "quantify" the "subject"/"theme" of the sentence....

Lapset leikkivät rannalla paljon....the direct statement
..."The children played a lot on the beach."

Lapsia leikki rannalla paljon.

...Now, this time maybe I should ask native speakers how they would translate this sentence into Finnish...???..

According to the article, lapsia in the partitive case "attracts" the quantifying adverb, paljon and the verb, now in a "weakened" form, is no longer "attractive" to the adverb....

The article goes on to explain that this kind of association will occur as long as the adverb can be construed as having a quantifying sense to it. It won't occur with adverbs that don't have this sense and attempting to do so would result in nonsense sentences....

Another adverb they use as an example is: järjettömästi:
Lapset leikkivät rannalla järjettömästi....the direct statement
..."The children played unreasonably on the beach."

Lapsia leikki rannalla järjettömästi.
..."There were an unreasonable (number) of children playing on the beach."

Any comments?... Am I missing any key points?....

[Jukka Aho]

Lapset leikkivät rannalla paljon....the direct statement
..."The children played a lot on the beach."

Lapsia leikki rannalla paljon.

...Now, this time maybe I should ask native speakers how they would translate this sentence into Finnish...???..

Into English, you mean? “There were lots of children playing on the beach.” (Yeah, I can see where you’re getting at.)

Any comments?... Am I missing any key points?....:D

As usual, isolated example sentences without context are harder to interpret in any particular way than if they were provided with such context (or at least this native speaker gets glassy eyes and begins to doubt if his interpretations are correct after having stared at those sentences for a while)... but yes, I think you got the basics right.

[j.petsku]

Sorry to jump in late and stir more confusion into an already confusing pot

Those are more neutral. The forms which begin with the subject are used for a different kind of emphasis. For example,

Autoja on yleensä kadulla.
“Cars are normally/generally/usually found in the street(s).”

This, along with examples like "Ihmisiä kuolee joka päivä" lead me to believe that the partitive subject is a semi-standard way of expressing "universal truths." Is this correct? Of could I just as well say, "Autot ovat yleensä kadulla."

As another example, in answer to the question, "Missä pingviinit asuvat?" would I say:
Pingviinit asuvat kylmissä ilmastoissa.

Or:
Pingviinejä asuu kylmissä ilmastoissa.

And if using the nominative plural is correct, does it matter if the "truth" is less universal:
Speaker A: Missä karhut asuvat?
Speaker B: Karhut asuvat metsissä.
Speaker C: Kyllä karhuja asuu metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Or could speaker C just as well say:
Kyllä karhut asuvat metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.


I guess my confusion arises from Rob's question:

1. Poika on pihalla....the simple direct statement.
..."The boy is in the yard."

Could this be interpeted as: "A boy...."? And if not, what would have to be written?

:

In other words, how to construct subject-leading sentences that, in English, would be preceded by the article "a" or no article at all. Much of this, I think, is determined by context in Finnish.

Regarding Rob's question, I do know I've seen instances in which a singular subject in nominative would be translated with the article "a," though they are not common. An example, again, would be a sentence that describes a "universal" truth, or at least one that is generally believed.

"Palomies on sellainen joka ryntää pelottomasti vaaraan."
"A fireman is someone who runs fearlessly into the face of danger."

"(oikea) Isä ei hylkäisi perhettään."
"A father wouldn't abandon his family."

[Upphew]

And if using the nominative plural is correct, does it matter if the "truth" is less universal:
Speaker A: Missä karhut asuvat?
Speaker B: Karhut asuvat metsissä.
Speaker C: Kyllä karhuja asuu metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Or could speaker C just as well say:
Kyllä karhut asuvat metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Slight difference between those two: 1st one is roughly "Some bears live in the forests, some other on the pole, some in the plains and zoos",
2nd "All the bears live in the forest, but also on the pole, plains and zoos". First is making difference (gray, black, polar) between the bears, latter is all the bears as a whole, regardless of their colour.

[Rob A.]

And if using the nominative plural is correct, does it matter if the "truth" is less universal:
Speaker A: Missä karhut asuvat?
Speaker B: Karhut asuvat metsissä.
Speaker C: Kyllä karhuja asuu metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Or could speaker C just as well say:
Kyllä karhut asuvat metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Slight difference between those two: 1st one is roughly "Some bears live in the forests, some other on the pole, some in the plains and zoos",
2nd "All the bears live in the forest, but also on the pole, plains and zoos"./b] First is making difference (gray, black, polar) between the bears, latter is all the bears as a whole, regardless of their colour.

But is this logical?...it doesn't sound logical in English...so I suspect you couldn't say this either in Finnish without invoking the partitive...???

The fact is not all the bears [in the universe] live in the forests... though I suppose if you are sure of the context you could say:

"In Finland all the bears live in the forests...but bears also live on the pole...."

Suomessa karhut asuvat metsissä, mutta myös karhuja asuu pohjoisnavalla........Would that be better? though, soehow it still seems a bit awkward to me...

[Jukka Aho]

And if using the nominative plural is correct, does it matter if the "truth" is less universal:
Speaker A: Missä karhut asuvat?
Speaker B: Karhut asuvat metsissä.
Speaker C: Kyllä karhuja asuu metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Or could speaker C just as well say:
Kyllä karhut asuvat metsissä, mutta myös pohjoisnavalla, tasangoilla, ja eläintarhoissa.

Slight difference between those two: 1st one is roughly "Some bears live in the forests, some other on the pole, some in the plains and zoos",
2nd "All the bears live in the forest, but also on the pole, plains and zoos". First is making difference (gray, black, polar) between the bears, latter is all the bears as a whole, regardless of their colour.

I’d say the second one should be translated just as “Bears do live in forests (generally speaking), but (in addition to living there) also...” while the first one would have more of that “some” aspect.

The actual difference between karhuja and karhut, in this context, would appear to be whether we’re focusing on the loose idea of (some) random individuals (karhuja) or bear subspecies (a loosely-defined plurality of them) living somewhere (but we’re not claiming to cover them all in this discussion, hence the partitive!) or, in the latter case, “the bear(s)” (karhut) as a more rigid concept; a taxonomic family (Ursidae, or whatever they are called in Latin); a (complete?) collection of subspecies belonging to that family. But I guess that’s what you were trying to say, anyway.

It’s more of a stylistic choice or a choice of a viewpoint than a choice that would really matter in one way or the other.

[j.petsku]

Thanks, so it sounds like neither raises any red flags for being incorrect? As I see it, there seems to be a continuum of structures for how confident the speaker feels about the universality of his or her statement. In order from most confident to least:

Kaikki karhut asuvat metsässä.
Karhut asuvat metsässä.
Karhuja asuu metsässä.
Jotkut karhut asuvat metsässä.

...though this last is actually more descriptive, and would perhaps be followed by a delineation of the different species etc.. Does this seem right? Or is the partitive version entirely unique for some reason?

The whole question also makes me wonder how you regulate the specificity of mass nouns in Finnish. I'm not sure how to phrase this question, so I'll use an example. How would the following exchange be translated into Finnish?

Rice is white.
Well, some rice is white, but if the germ isn't removed, it's actually brown.

Would it sound right to say:
Riisi on valkoista.
No, riisiä (?) on valkoista, mutta jos ituja ei oteta pois, se on itse asiassa ruskeaa.

[j.petsku]

Lapset leikkivät rannalla paljon....the direct statement
..."The children played a lot on the beach."

Lapsia leikki rannalla paljon.

...Now, this time maybe I should ask native speakers how they would translate this sentence into Finnish...???..

Into English, you mean? “There were lots of children playing on the beach.” (Yeah, I can see where you’re getting at.)

Very interesting... Incidentally, I just noticed that "Lapsia leikki rannalla paljon" nicely parallels the original passage in the thread...
Paarmoja on maailmassa 2 500 lajia...

...where the quantifier comes last in the clause, but modifies the first word "paarmoja."

So, about this problem, would it be impossible to say "some children were playing a lot on the beach" with this structure? Maybe:
Lapsia leikki rannalla pitkään. ??

[Rob A.]

So, about this problem, would it be impossible to say "some children were playing a lot on the beach" with this structure? Maybe:
Lapsia leikki rannalla pitkään. ??

I'll give it a try....

First the declarative sentence:
"Some children were playing a lot on the beach."
...Jotkut lapset leikkivät paljon rannalla.

...and the existential sentence:
"There were some children playing a lot on the beach."
...Joitakin lapsia leikki paljon rannalla...??

...I think that paljon could only be construed as an adverb modifying the verb, leikki...??

[Rob A.]

So, about this problem, would it be impossible to say "some children were playing a lot on the beach" with this structure? Maybe:
Lapsia leikki rannalla pitkään. ??

I'll give it a try....

First the declarative sentence:
"Some children were playing a lot on the beach."
...Jotkut lapset leikkivät paljon rannalla.

...and the existential sentence:
"There were some children playing a lot on the beach."
...Joitakin lapsia leikki paljon rannalla...??

...I think that paljon could only be construed as an adverb modifying the verb, leikki...??

I found this "classic" example of a Finnish existential sentence in today's HS:

Brittilehti: Suomessa syntyy vähiten lapsia kuolleena.

This sentence has, I think, all, or almost all, of the typically expected "hallmarks" of an existential construction:

1. An external point-of-view
2. No overt subject
3. Verb in the third person singular
4. a "locational element"...Suomessa...although it doesn't have to lead the sentence it often does, as in this example.
5. The "theme" of the sentence...lapsia is in the plural partitive...existential sentences don't have to have plural themes, but frequently they do.
6. The adverb, vähiten is quantitative...existential sentences often strongly favour having a quantitative adverb modifying the "softened" verb....

I would translate this as:

Literally: "British newspaper: In Finland there are born least children as dead."
"British newspaper: Finland has the least amount of still-born children."...or similar variations.

Brittilehti: Suomessa syntyy vähiten lapsia kuolleena.
"Brittilehti:""....this is an introductory element...not sure what the grammatical term would be for it...
"Suomessa""...this would be some sort of indirect object, and an important element in existential sentences...in the inessive case.
"syntyy""...third person singular...a verb that lends itself well to an existential sentence.
"vähiten"...a quantifying adverb
"lapsia"...this is the "theme" of the sentence...grammarians argue over its role...it is difficult to say for sure whether it is the subject or the direct object of the sentence.
"kuolleena"....this is in the essive case, and is I think...??..a indirect object of the verb ..."syntyy"....

[AldenG]

Finally, here is a sentence that confuses me even more....apparently it is an existential sentence:

Utta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle nopeasti.

Despite what the paper says I think you would have to interpret this as:
..."There quickly grew a new forest in the cleared space."

...apparently using the allative case ending ...tilalle... is significant, and that somehow this implies that the verb ....kasvoi is about coming into existence, rather than actually growing in an incremental way....????

Well, if you think about it, once you cut all the trees there isn't forest anymore. After 10 years you come back and see that on the same place there grows something you can already call trees. Thus new forest came into existence, there was nothing gradual about that, first: no forest, next: forest. New forest grew instead of the old one, and it did it fast!

If I understand this properly, then the direct statement would have to be:
Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun tilalla nopeasti....in other words, tilalla in the adessive case....

You could understand that as New forest grew fast at the farm of the beaten one. Uusi metsä kasvoi hakatun paikalla nopeasti. Now the forest grew fast at the place where some other forest were cut down.

Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun tilalle is not about a hakattu tila into which new growth appears.

Perhaps the sentence becomes clearer if you add a metsän thus: Uutta metsää kasvoi hakatun metsän tilalle. ( Though my ear wants to hear mettän )

So tilalle here means "into the place of, to replace, as a replacement for". It's part of the phrase jonkin tilalle.

[AldenG]

Oops, I see that I responded to a stale issue. I saw there was new activity in the thread but read the end of page 1, not page 2.

And yet after a hasty review of page 2, it does appear that the point I just made, a significant one, had not quite become explicit although Upphew gets close to saying it.

It was more of a comment to Rob A than to Upphew, obviously, but Upphew's post conveniently assembled the earlier pieces.