small questions from the news

[orbik]

So can I consider adjective in essive case as a temporary condition and norminative as general(chronical) condition?

In those cases (sairas, vieras...) the essive case has an established, idiomatic meaning. In general it's not about temporary vs general condition, but being in place of something - as something, vs being the thing itself.

Some more usages of adjective + essive:
pitää jtk jnak - "view/think of/hold smth as smth"
tarjoillaan kylmänä - "served cold"
rauta on taottava kuumana - "Strike while the iron is hot"
pienenä - "as a child"
isona - "when (I/you/...) grow up"

What is the infinitive form of purtava?

Purtava - "to-be-bitten" - is the passive "-va" pariticiple of purra - to bite.

Usually there is sign like "luvaton pysäköinti kielletty", my question is if there is a "on" missing?

Trivial verbs are usually omitted in signs, headings etc, just like you'd do in English: "Unauthorized parking prohibited" is missing the "is" too.

[Jukka Aho]

Purtava is the passive "-va" pariticiple of purra - to bite. It's essentially an adjective - "to-be-bitten".

Also a colloquial-ish noun for something-to-eat, something “to bite on”, something to sink your teeth into. See the phrase “jotain pikku purtavaa”. Exists also as a compound word: pikkupurtava. (pikkupurtava = a little savoury snack of some sort, or when used in the partitive it could refer an assortment of such snacks on a smorgasbord – perhaps little meat-filled pastries or small sandwiches or something on cocktail sticks or Karelian pies – not an actual meal.)

[garoowood]

Ok, thx.

It seems purtava is a special conjugation of verb purra, as it should be "pureva" according to the rules.

Oops, my fault, it is purra in passive present participle, so it is according to the conjugation rules.

[Rob A.]

...So can I consider adjective in essive case as a temporary condition and norminative as general(chronical) condition?
...

I suppose that is the appropriate way to view the essive case...though "temporary" can be of a quite long duration and one has to "make allowances" for fixed and idiomatic expressions... Remember linguists and grammarians don't ...except for the few artificail languages... create languages... Farmers and peasants and hunter/gatherers are the ones who created most of the world's languages... The linguists and grammarians came along later and articulate rules and develop fancy words such as "essive" and "nominative".....

The "nominative" is simply the subject of a sentence...typically the cause of the action....and it is the "dictionary" form of the word...I suppose because some form has to be....though, at least with Latin, I suppose you could argue the genitive should be used...[Latin noun stems for the various declensions are developed from the genitive form....]

And while we're here, how do I get you to stop calling it the "norminative"?....maybe write out the word, "nominative", 100 times on a blackboard..???...

[Pursuivant]

In general it's not about temporary vs general condition, but being in place of something - as something, vs being the thing itself.

Mies kuoli.
Hän makasi kuolleena.

You don't really stop being dead....

[Rob A.]

In general it's not about temporary vs general condition, but being in place of something - as something, vs being the thing itself.

Mies kuoli.
Hän makasi kuolleena.

You don't really stop being dead....

Hmmmm...
Mies kuoli..."The man died."
Hän makasi kuolleena...."He laid down in death."

... Etsintäkuulutettu: Elävänä tai kuolleena...both forms in the essive...apparently the (long-winded... ) Finnish equivalent of "Wanted: Dead or Alive"....literally something like..."Wanted: In-living or In-death."

....and your second version sounds vaguely "biblical", so maybe the use of the essive makes sense from a historical perspective... papeilla oli paljon vaikutusta kieleen.. .... The Biblethumpers among us would have us believe :

Sillä armosta te olette pelastetut uskon kautta, ette itsenne kautta - se on Jumalan lahja.....Paavalin Kirje Efesolaisille 2:8....

[garoowood]

......,mikä vaaransi luottamuksen asian valmistelun puolueettomuuden.
which jeopardized the confidence of impartiality of the preparation of the matter.

Well, my question is if luottamuksen should be put after puolueettomuuden, meaning the confidence of the impartiality, otherwise I have problem with the grammar in these words which are all in N accusative cases.

[Keravalainen]

Hi!
Where did you get that phrase? It makes no sense. No wonder you are confused.
I think it might say "......,mikä vaaransi luottamuksen asian valmistelun puolueettomuuteen."

- - Right?

[garoowood]

Hi!
Where did you get that phrase? It makes no sense. No wonder you are confused.
I think it might say "......,mikä vaaransi luottamuksen asian valmistelun puolueettomuuteen."

- - Right?

original one:
Oikeuskansleri Jaakko Jonkka moittii tuoreimman ydinlupapäätöksen valmistelua. Jonkan mukaan työ- ja elinkeinoministeriön osastopäällikkö Taisto Turunen oli esteellinen valmistelemaan asiaa, mikä vaaransi luottamuksen asian valmistelun puolueettomuuden.

[EP]

It should be "puolueettomuuteen".

Whoever wrote that wrote "kapulakieltä", in a school essay a sentence like that would be a big minus.

[Keravalainen]

Hi garoowood!

Your source seems to have had a typo in their text.

Here's the original STT article, which was widely quoted by Finnish news media.
http://www.stt.fi/fi/sttn-uutisia/view/ ... sesti.html

[garoowood]

http://www.hs.fi/talous/artikkeli/Oikeu ... 5257614001

......,mikä vaaransi luottamuksen asian valmistelun puolueettomuuteen.
so it means which jeopardized the confidence into the impartiality of the preparation of the matter?

[garoowood]

Jonkan ministeriöstä saaman selvityksen mukaan Turunen ei millään tavalla osallistunut Fennovoima Oy:n ydinvoimalaitoshankkeen ympäristövaikutusten arviointityöhön. Valmistelusta vastasi keskeisesti yli-insinööri Jorma Aurela.

According to the report received by Jonkka from the ministry, Turunen did not, by any means, participate to Fennovoima Oy's evaluation work of environment influence of nuclear power plant project. Senior engineer Jorma Aurela was centrally responsible about the preparation.

Any mistakes about the translation here?

Jonkan mukaan Turusen tapaus on esimerkki siitä, mihin aikaisempi käytäntö valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta ministeriöittäin saattoi pahimmillaan johtaa.

I need help with the translation of this sentence and an explaination about the grammar in this sentence.

[Jukka Aho]

Any mistakes about the translation here?

Nothing I could spot. Perhaps you could change some expressions into more idiomatic English but the ideas expressed within the original sentence are all there in so far as I can see.

Jonkan mukaan Turusen tapaus on esimerkki siitä, mihin aikaisempi käytäntö valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta ministeriöittäin saattoi pahimmillaan johtaa.

I need help with the translation of this sentence and an explaination about the grammar in this sentence.

Jonkan mukaan
According to Jonkka

Turusen tapaus
the Turunen case

on esimerkki siitä
is an example of the (kind of) thing(s)

mihin aikaisempi käytäntö [...] saattoi pahimmillaan johtaa
in which the former[ly observed] practice [...] could result/lead at its worst.

• • •

The additional descriptive/attributive part, which I didn’t translate yet, defines the nature and scope of those practices in more detail:

aikaisempi käytäntö valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta ministeriöittäin

That’s a mouthful. Let’s chop it in smaller pieces:

aikaisempi käytäntö jakamisesta
former practice of dividing...
former practice concerning (the) division (of)...

Dividing what? Division of what?

aikaisempi käytäntö omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta
the former practice concerning the division of steering responsibilities/tasks among owners (the biggest shareholders of the company)

And which steering responsibilities are those? What do they concern?

valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävistä
the owners’ steering tasks concerning companies owned by the government

ministeriöittäin
by (relevant) departments of government

• • •

So....

“According to Jonkka, the Turunen case is an example of the (kind of) thing(s) in which the former[ly observed] practice of dividing the owners’[/shareholders’] steering responsibilities/tasks, concerning government-owned companies, by the (relevant/respective) departments of government, could result/lead at its worst.”

Or something like that. It’s a complicated, opaque sentence. The underlying idea should probably be split into several sentences for proper translation and better understanding.

[garoowood]

Any mistakes about the translation here?

Nothing I could spot. Perhaps you could change some expressions into more idiomatic English but the ideas expressed within the original sentence are all there in so far as I can see.

Jonkan mukaan Turusen tapaus on esimerkki siitä, mihin aikaisempi käytäntö valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta ministeriöittäin saattoi pahimmillaan johtaa.

I need help with the translation of this sentence and an explaination about the grammar in this sentence.

Jonkan mukaan
According to Jonkka

Turusen tapaus
the Turunen case

on esimerkki siitä
is an example of the (kind of) thing(s)

mihin aikaisempi käytäntö [...] saattoi pahimmillaan johtaa
in which the former[ly observed] practice [...] could result/lead at its worst.

• • •

The additional descriptive/attributive part, which I didn’t translate yet, defines the nature and scope of those practices in more detail:

aikaisempi käytäntö valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta ministeriöittäin

That’s a mouthful. Let’s chop it in smaller pieces:

aikaisempi käytäntö jakamisesta
former practice of dividing...
former practice concerning (the) division (of)...

Dividing what? Division of what?

aikaisempi käytäntö omistajaohjaustehtävien jakamisesta
the former practice concerning the division of steering responsibilities/tasks among owners (the biggest shareholders of the company)

And which steering responsibilities are those? What do they concern?

valtio-omisteisten yhtiöiden omistajaohjaustehtävistä
the owners’ steering tasks concerning companies owned by the government

ministeriöittäin
by (relevant) departments of government

• • •

So....

“According to Jonkka, the Turunen case is an example of the (kind of) thing(s) in which the former[ly observed] practice of dividing the owners’[/shareholders’] steering responsibilities/tasks, concerning government-owned companies, by the (relevant/respective) departments of government, could result/lead at its worst.”

Or something like that. It’s a complicated, opaque sentence. The underlying idea should probably be split into several sentences for proper translation and better understanding.

Your explaination is just designed for me, I really appreciate it! Still something to ask: can I use missä as "in which" in this case? And ministeriöittäin seems to be "ministeriö" in instructive case, but what meaning does "ittä" carry here?
I will come with more questions