Random thoughts about Finnish language by a native

Learn and discuss the Finnish language with Finn's and foreigners alike
User avatar
Mark I.
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: Helsinki

Random thoughts about Finnish language by a native

Post by Mark I. » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:56 pm

We all know Finnish belongs to a special group of languages, namely Finno-Ugrian languages. That makes Finnish fundamentally different from, say, Germanic languages.

When I learned English, I found it intriguing because it's so different from Finnish. First things I noticed, that English is much more precise and accurate language, and Finnish is kind of poetic language compaired to E.

Finnish is much more phoneticly descriptive language than English. For me, English is kind of coded language instead of straight forward descriptive, though I think origin of any language has to be descriptive.

Someone here took example of "yökkäys"/ "yökätä" (when starting/going to vomit), as easy to understand.

Now, the following is more or less my own speculation/thoughts - I have not red or studied about these things, so if someone corrects me or gives contribution about the issue, I'd appreciate that.

Think about Finnish fish names, like hauki, ahven, särki, siika, lohi, muikku, etc. Say hauki (pike). English name obviously comes from the shape of the fish (pike, piikki).

I'd argue that the F name comes from description of the fish's mouth, and use of the mouth when the fish eats. Watch what kind of movements your mouth does when you say "hauki". When pike attacks a smaller fish, it opens it's wide mouth open and snaps the pray. HAU. Furthermore, -ki -ending might be desciption of a pike eating/swallowing it's pray.

(BTW, haukka (hawk) is also a preditor, and the name is pretty close to hauki.)

Let's take another fish, särki. Now, I don't even know what's the English name of that fish, but you might get an idea by just saying "särki". Does your mouth open big or small way? Is that a big or a small fish? Does it sound like it would be a predator fish, snapping a pray with a big mouth, or a small fish, eating small things like insects etc.?

These things are difficult trying to explain, and there's a danger of "playing tennis without a net". Hopefully these random (crazy? :lol: ) thoughts give something for you studing Finnish - it can be kind of exiting to learn quite different sort of language - like poetry, it might blow your mind... :wink:



Random thoughts about Finnish language by a native

Sponsor:

Finland Forum Ad-O-Matic
 

smilesalot
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: HEL

Post by smilesalot » Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:23 pm

särki is a roach fish. Its called rutilus rutilus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutilus

I imagined a mid size fish, so I had to look it up. Its from the gold fish family so I guessed wrong(I never win at alypaa.com either)

thanks for the insights and observations.

smilesalot :)

Hide not your talents, they for use were made. What's a sundial in the shade?
B. Franklin

User avatar
sinikala
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:10 pm
Location: Alankomaa

Post by sinikala » Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:46 pm

Interesting observations.
Mark I wrote:When I learned English, I found it intriguing because it's so different from Finnish. First things I noticed, that English is much more precise and accurate language.
Obviously I agree it's different. :)

But I suggest that English is just the opposite, much less precise, much less accurate, at least in written English you can screw the grammar up completely and still be understood.

You can even get the word wrong (no not just a spelling mistake, but an entirely different word to the one you intended to use) and from context still be understood ...

red/read
prey/pray
exiting/exciting
it's / its

IMO she is made the many mistooks i Engleesh, but still is understand. :wink:

German is not so forgiving, say to a Kraut "Gott in Himmel" and they look at you like you are thick.... in dem Himmel ... Gott im Himmel. FFS who gives one? Finns are IMHO similarly anal about grammar.... one lousy iltänä and all hell breaks loose. :lol:
Image

Pavlor
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Tampere

Post by Pavlor » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:53 pm

sinikala wrote:Interesting observations.
Mark I wrote:When I learned English, I found it intriguing because it's so different from Finnish. First things I noticed, that English is much more precise and accurate language.
Obviously I agree it's different. :)

But I suggest that English is just the opposite, much less precise, much less accurate, at least in written English you can screw the grammar up completely and still be understood.

You can even get the word wrong (no not just a spelling mistake, but an entirely different word to the one you intended to use) and from context still be understood ...

red/read
prey/pray
exiting/exciting
it's / its

IMO she is made the many mistooks i Engleesh, but still is understand. :wink:

German is not so forgiving, say to a Kraut "Gott in Himmel" and they look at you like you are thick.... in dem Himmel ... Gott im Himmel. FFS who gives one? Finns are IMHO similarly anal about grammar.... one lousy iltänä and all hell breaks loose. :lol:
I have to agree with you regarding the above Sinikala. I believe it's the way natives are taught their language from school and the whole psychology/sociology of learning that is prescribed at that time. I was never taught English grammar as educational sociologists believed it irrelevant we wrote grammatically correctly as long as the contents were rich and robust. Two generations before me, grammar was the be-all-and-end-all of language and punctuation and correct grammar/structure was paramount to "good English". In the seventies, educationalists wanted to know what was happening in that lil' "black box" (the classroom) and Pandora's Box was opened... Teaching/Learning became under scrutiny and new methodologies came into play and the whole rote/Confuscian learning that had been the main way of learning was considered ineffective in comparison to the new ways to educate that were in operation (however people had learnt before is anyone's guess...). Anyway, I believe English is less anal about foreigners being grammatically correct is because most natives can't give a rat's arse whether their own English is correct. On saying that, however, there is the whole "authority" issue that has to be taken into account as English does not have any language authority that other languages have. This means that we have a standard but not a single body/institution that says "This is right" and "This is wrong" as they do in let's say Finland. We have dialect variations and these should be adhered to. So in countries that have a language authority, there is a definitive correct version of the language and that is why Finns are uptight about grammar and such. In short, it's a mindset issue which has been learnt from institutionalised schooling.

English is a freer language when it comes to grammar (and contrary to popular belief, English has a rather complex grammatical system) as it is spoken by so many people, which in itself leads to many differing variations, none of which are better or worse than the other (it all becomes terribly subjective). Finnish does not have this as there are only what, 6-7 million people who speak it, plus there is a complete prescriptive print-out of the language that you do not get in the English language.

User avatar
rrryyyaaannn
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by rrryyyaaannn » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:11 pm

I agree with the above post. English is spoken more intuitively, and not so descriptively like Finnish. There's a lot of social context that comes into play. For instance, if I said "You're an idiot." to my boss, I might get fired. But if I say, "You're an idiot!" to my friend at the right time, it suddenly becomes endearing. So I think maybe what Mark meant in his original post when he said that English is more precise, is that in English, there are many ways to explain any single thing, and it takes a bit of social savvy to understand what words to use to communicate your message most accurately...
skype name: rrryyyaaannn

User avatar
Mark I.
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: Helsinki

Post by Mark I. » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:12 pm

sinikala wrote: Finns are IMHO similarly anal about grammar.... one lousy iltänä and all hell breaks loose. :lol:
That was not about grammar, and I don't think it's strict with Finnish grammar at all. Allmost everyone writes (and speaks) Finnish in false (grammar) ways, and correcting is usually considered as anal.

But, there is such a thing as good and bad Finnish, for example it's beyond me how some people write like this on a public web page (where generally people are carefull about how they write): (Just saw this on another page:)

" Pitää nyt erottaa seurustelu ja tapailu .
Seurustellessa mä AINA kasvokkain haluan erota , mutta jotkut tapaamani miehet ei .
Jos toisesta ei pahemmin piittaa eli ei seurustella niin ihan sama miten ilmasee itsensä , ettei kiinnosta ."

That is IMO so bad Finnish, that it's closing on the limit as to understanding the message or not (requires thinking what does she mean).

User avatar
Timbeh
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:19 am
Location: In the Mind's Eye of the Beholder

Post by Timbeh » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:10 pm

rrryyyaaannn wrote:There's a lot of social context that comes into play. For instance, if I said "You're an idiot." to my boss, I might get fired. But if I say, "You're an idiot!" to my friend at the right time, it suddenly becomes endearing.
The exact same holds true for finnish and finns as well. :wink: The context and the way things are said do play a large part in how the message is interpreted.

I don't think those kinds of things really depend that much on the language but on the particular culture and norms for behaving. If you're a good friend with your boss you might even say that she's/he's an idiot (with a smile) and you might not be fired. If on the other hand you've just been hired and your boss is a complete stranger to you then you're surely in trouble.

It's also dependent on the mainstream culture of the country. I presume that in Japan, no matter how good buddies you were with your boss, you couldn't say "you're an idiot" to them. I might be wrong but I've heard that they are very, very strict about protocol, status and hierarchy in there.
"The whole world cries out, "Peace, Freedom, and a few less fat bastards eating all the pie"."
- Edmund Blackadder

User avatar
Suomlainen
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Rauma Finland

Post by Suomlainen » Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:07 pm

From the finnish point of view I would say English as "easy to learn" language.

Why, because its quite chained to rules. Unlike finnish where you can say 1 thing in dozen of ways and it still sounds logical. For me Word Flexible covers finnish language quite well.

Minä ostan maitoa
ostan minä maitoa
maitoa minä ostan

all are completely uderstandable. Altho the 2nd one sounds like some 1 would ask him "ostatkos nyt maitoa?"
Image

Kesä on vihdoin täällä!

Rosamunda
Posts: 10650
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:07 am

Post by Rosamunda » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:08 pm

Suomlainen wrote:From the finnish point of view I would say English as "easy to learn" language.

Why, because its quite chained to rules.
examples?????

I can't think of many rules and I'm supposed to be teaching the language.

And it is only easy to learn because you hear it spoken every day (up here) and, as mentioned before, you can make a zillion mistakes and still be more or less understood.

Finnish kids learn to read fluently in first grade in just a few months. It takes English kids on average three years to learn to read fluently. And only 78% of the adult population is literate anyway.

User avatar
sinikala
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:10 pm
Location: Alankomaa

Post by sinikala » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:25 pm

penelope wrote:Finnish kids learn to read fluently in first grade in just a few months. It takes English kids on average three years to learn to read fluently. And only 78% of the adult population is literate anyway.
Hard to make a direct 3 year : 1 year comparison there.

English kids start at 4/5, Finns start at 7 and they both become literate at say 8, I can believe that, but three years of UK infant school is not intensive, the kids spend as much time becoming numerate as literate, and aged 4 surely > half the class time is spent on fingerpainting & the like... it's all my kid brothers seemed to do.

As an ex-pat in South Africa I started school at the South African age of 6, with a January start I was practically 6.5. We were due to leave South Africa 6 months later so I was put on an intensive reading/writing course, & reached my UK reading age in that time. Not 3 years, but 6 months.

English kids may take 3 years, but it's only because of the very early start that they have the luxury of taking 3 years, it can be done in a fraction of that time.
Image

Pavlor
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Tampere

Post by Pavlor » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:28 pm

penelope wrote:
Suomlainen wrote:From the finnish point of view I would say English as "easy to learn" language.

Why, because its quite chained to rules.
examples?????

I can't think of many rules and I'm supposed to be teaching the language.
Ever picked up an English grammar book Penelope? English is most definitely chained to rules, although the lack of inflection makes it easy to put the language together, unlike Finska...

teddibiase
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:49 am

.

Post by teddibiase » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:40 pm

penelope wrote:Finnish kids learn to read fluently in first grade in just a few months. It takes English kids on average three years to learn to read fluently. And only 78% of the adult population is literate anyway.
I'd say that's quite reasonable. The language is written like it's spoken.

enk
Posts: 4094
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: .

Post by enk » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:52 pm

teddibiase wrote:
penelope wrote:Finnish kids learn to read fluently in first grade in just a few months. It takes English kids on average three years to learn to read fluently. And only 78% of the adult population is literate anyway.
I'd say that's quite reasonable. The language is written like it's spoken.
Ah I know I repeat myself, but it really isn't. Not 100%, probably
not even 80% and if you get to the dialects I'd say it's definitely under
50%.

If it were, you wouldn't have rules like: sydämeen mahtuu vain yksi
ämmä. Or why people say "internettiin" but write "internetiin". The n in
kenkä is not pronounced n, the end of the word "tule" in the phrase tule
tänne
is not "e"*, the word kauan is still spelled kauvan in some
dialects, but pronounced kauan or kauwan in speech (some places
pronounce it kauvan, too), books have rules admonishing students for
writing yheksän, yhyreksän, yhreksän, etc., instead of yhdeksän, there is
an extra vowel after h in some dialects (kahavi, ihiminen, yhyreksän: the
vowel proceeding the h or the consonant cluster with h in it is usually
repeated (but not always, i.e., palojon vs. palajon)), etc.

I would love to shoot the nitwit that came up with that stupid "rule". :evil:
I would have learned to write Finnish a lot more quickly "properly" if
people hadn't tried to get that stupid rule through my thick skull.
And I still can't spell ihminen right without having to remove the
extra i (and learning Estonian didn't help cull that trait out
either :twisted:).

*And before Mark, you claim that no one speaks Finnish that way:
http://www.helsinki.fi/puhetieteet/proj ... lopuke.htm
;)

-enk

User avatar
Mark I.
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: .

Post by Mark I. » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:20 pm

enk wrote: *And before Mark, you claim that no one speaks Finnish that way:
http://www.helsinki.fi/puhetieteet/proj ... lopuke.htm
;)

-enk
Ok, now I get what you mean, but your example of "hyvää iltaa" was wrong, there's no such switch to "iltää".

Yap, especially when saying quickly (or lazy) sentences/words that have vovels next to each other (separated by a consonant), those vovels can get "mixed up with each others" (mouth kind of is not fast enough to make them separate).

As to learning something from this academic detail - none what so ever.

User avatar
Suomlainen
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Rauma Finland

Post by Suomlainen » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:56 pm

Pavlor wrote:
penelope wrote:
Suomlainen wrote:From the finnish point of view I would say English as "easy to learn" language.

Why, because its quite chained to rules.
examples?????

I can't think of many rules and I'm supposed to be teaching the language.
Ever picked up an English grammar book Penelope? English is most definitely chained to rules, although the lack of inflection makes it easy to put the language together, unlike Finska...
Yeah, many things can only be said by 1 way in english, but in finnish you can talk it it many ways. I could say that Finn-ugrig languages are like advance latin based.

I do not mean that it would be better in anyway since the importan part of language is that ppl can communicate with each other, you do not need to be too good in finnish since ppl will understand you even if you talk like
"minä olla huonovointi" even tho it sounds funny I can understand what the person is trying to say to me.
Image

Kesä on vihdoin täällä!


Post Reply