Kysymyksiä, apua!

[AldenG]

(And to think they say a liberal arts education serves no useful purpose...)

[Rob A.]

They're Belgian, by the way.

That sounds a bit familar.... in French they are simply called pommes frites....which, of course, creates another debate about the "clarity" of the French language.... Sounds like "fried apples".... Makes you wonder what you would have to say if you actually want fried apples...

Madame, je voudrais une portion des pommes frites, s'il vous plait. Mais non!!!....je vous avais dit ...clairement!!!.... "Pommes frites"!!!... Je ne veux pas les ....."pommes frites". Tabernac!!!....

[Edit: typos!]

[Rob A.]

(And to think they say a liberal arts education serves no useful purpose...)

Of course they are wrong....it gives you the mental agility to understand and to know what to do when, say, the economy turns sour and the "factory' closes in your "one-industry" town....assuming you were foolish enough to move there in the first place...

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a philosophy major years ago.... I uttered the usual nonsense consistent with my pragmatic, down-to-earth upbringing, ....about how it might be hard to find a good job, etc., after you graduate.... He said in a friendly tone....'Oh yes....but you will know how to accept that.....philosophically.'....

[David O.]

Maailmankaikkeudessa on miljoona norsua / norsut. Katsoimme miljoona norsua/norsut..... OK, OK....even though we "saw" the complete set of elephants, I simply just "know" that the partitive, norsua, would be used here....

Right, this is another reason why the "part of a set" line of thinking doesn't work for me. My internal rationalization of the partitive is simpler: it's used to mark expressions of quantity. And the reason it's used in negative sentences is because "I don't want it" is roughly equivalent to "I want none of it". (Now, does a language need to have a special marker for expressions of quantity? Of course not. But all languages have special markers for things that other languages don't bother with. English has a special marker for something unique and/or familiar to the listener/reader. Sounds quirky and random, right? It's the word "the"...).

Of course, all this really demonstrates is that our brains are flexible enough to accept just about any halfway reasonable explanation, and what really matters is getting enough practice so that using the partitive becomes second nature...

"We saw infinite dogs."...admittedly not the best English.... Somehow this implies to me, emotionally, "all dogs" ...though, intellectually, it actually doesn't mean that...it's an unspecified, unbounded number....

I'm sure in Finnish the translation would be:

Katsoimme ääretön koiraa......

Ääretön isn't a quantifier, it's just an ordinary adjective. So you need partitive plural:
Näimme äärettömiä koiria - We saw some infinite dogs (i.e. dogs with unlimited physical dimensions).
Näimme lukemattomia koiria - We saw countless dogs.

Jääkaappissa on norsu......you couldn't say....*Jääkaappissa on norsun.....This is an example of a Finnish existential sentence...there is no "overt" verb and so you need the nominative form....but, in a sense, it still implies "completeness" and is considered an accusative form...

Infinite dogs, elephants in the refrigerator... gee, we're really covering some important ground here.

Anyway, norsu is the subject of the sentence there, or I guess one could argue that it's the copula and the sentence has no subject (although I don't like that interpretation, it feels too English)... either way, it's not an object, it can't be considered accusative.
Of course, Jääkaapissa on norsua is also possible... "There's (some) elephant (meat) in the refrigerator."

This whole accusative thing is interesting, though. Do you actually find that thinking about the accusative in Finnish helps you understand things? I've tried, and for me, it just adds confusion. I don't think "Pistin norsun jääkaappiin... direct object... direct object means accusative, but the accusative (singular) coincides in form with the genitive." I just think "singular direct object goes in the genitive." The only time I think about accusative in Finnish is when dealing with personal pronouns (hänet murhattiin, etc.), where it actually has a distinct grammatical form.

[Rob A.]

Right, this is another reason why the "part of a set" line of thinking doesn't work for me. My internal rationalization of the partitive is simpler: it's used to mark expressions of quantity. And the reason it's used in negative sentences is because "I don't want it" is roughly equivalent to "I want none of it". (Now, does a language need to have a special marker for expressions of quantity? Of course not. But all languages have special markers for things that other languages don't bother with. English has a special marker for something unique and/or familiar to the listener/reader. Sounds quirky and random, right? It's the word "the"...).

Thanks....and, of course, "the" is the most frequently used word in the English language....yet, other languages don't even bother with articles....though they have other ways of creating "emphasis"..(such as varying the word order, which is usually problematic for English with its lack of case endings), and "specificity". The word, "the", developed from the more emphatic word, "that"....and similar developments occurred in the various Romance languages...even those were word order is more readily useful for emphasis...despite Latin not having articles.

Of course, all this really demonstrates is that our brains are flexible enough to accept just about any halfway reasonable explanation, and what really matters is getting enough practice so that using the partitive becomes second nature...

Yes....whatever works...
:

Ääretön isn't a quantifier, it's just an ordinary adjective. So you need partitive plural:
Näimme äärettömiä koiria - We saw some infinite dogs (i.e. dogs with unlimited physical dimensions).
Näimme lukemattomia koiria - We saw countless dogs.

I see....It looks "right" to me that it should be in the plural partitive, though, at the moment I can't quite recall why... Simply because it is unbounded and non-specific, I guess....sort of like "hundreds of books"....satoja kirjoja....

Anyway, norsu is the subject of the sentence there, or I guess one could argue that it's the copula and the sentence has no subject (although I don't like that interpretation, it feels too English)... either way, it's not an object, it can't be considered accusative.

Good point....which I was forgetting....it is an existential sentence and possibly is viewed as a copula, but it does not seem to be an object....though, I'm not sure. I'll review some of the material I have....

And, of course, as you know, a classic copula would look like this:

"Finland is a northern country."... Suomi on pohjoismaa.....pohjoismaa is a subject complement and must be in the same case as the subject...thus, the nominative.....

This whole accusative thing is interesting, though. Do you actually find that thinking about the accusative in Finnish helps you understand things? I've tried, and for me, it just adds confusion. I don't think "Pistin norsun jääkaappiin... direct object... direct object means accusative, but the accusative (singular) coincides in form with the genitive." I just think "singular direct object goes in the genitive." The only time I think about accusative in Finnish is when dealing with personal pronouns (hänet murhattiin, etc.), where it actually has a distinct grammatical form.

Yes...I'm slowly coming around to thinking about the direct object this way.... Modern grammarians argue over whether or not the accusative is really a "fully-fledged" Finnish case....whatever works for the language learner. I suppose knowing there is a linkage between the genitive and the accusative is good enough....and the distinguishing aspect of the genitive-accusative versus the partitive is that the former tends to carry a more "definite"...a more "complete"... sense.

[skandagupta]

"Squire....I should be desirous of obtaining two side plates of sliced potatoes cooked in vegetable oil in the exquisite fashion frequently encountered in the Kingdom of France, but, alas, generally unobtainable in our fair Realm...."

Methinks it be Ye Grande Duchie of Burgundie,Ye northern,dutch parte thereof.