Can someone explain me the difference between the cases?

[Strelok]

I am a native speaker of Russian and American English, and I would like some more information on the cases of Finnish. For example, I see no difference between the partitive (minua) and the accusative (minut) cases of "minä". It seems to me as if they are both the direct object form of "me", however there appears to be a difference. Can someone please explain to me all the cases of Finnish?

[tuulen]

I am a native speaker of Russian and American English, and I would like some more information on the cases of Finnish. For example, I see no difference between the partitive (minua) and the accusative (minut) cases of "minä". It seems to me as if they are both the direct object form of "me", however there appears to be a difference. Can someone please explain to me all the cases of Finnish?

Where English uses almost no cases, and where Russian uses several cases, Finnish uses 15 cases, depending on how they are counted.

Sincerely, I'd suggest that you are asking a really big question, and that a study of a Finnish grammar could better serve your needs.

For instance, to answer your question could amount to a small book's worth of explanation.

[Strelok]

Oh. Well, if it's that hard of a question, I guess I'd be better off learning from classes. The hard part is finding classes, but I will try.

[Mook]

I am a native speaker of Russian and American English, and I would like some more information on the cases of Finnish. For example, I see no difference between the partitive (minua) and the accusative (minut) cases of "minä". It seems to me as if they are both the direct object form of "me", however there appears to be a difference. Can someone please explain to me all the cases of Finnish?

Indeed, they are both direct object forms of me. You'd be better starting with Apples.

(Part)Omenaa - some apple(s) - kaksi Omenaa
(acc) Omenan - the whole apple - syön omenan

but then again for minä, it's just that certain verb require a certain form of object - you just have to learn that.

Rakastamme Sinua!

[Pursuivant]

Soldier is in the hospital: Kukusha ampui minua.
Soldier is in front of St. Peter: Kukusha ampui minut.

And you say theres no difference

[kalmisto]

Strelok

You might find some answers here :
http://www.uusikielemme.fi/grammar.html

and here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_grammar

[Bavarian]

but then again for minä, it's just that certain verb require a certain form of object - you just have to learn that.

And since the OP speaks Russian, I should note that Russian poses the same difficulties:

Why, for example, does the verb помочь/помогать {to help} take a direct object not in the accusative case, but in the dative case?
Or why does достичь/достигать {to achieve} take a direct object in the genetive case?

At least with Finnish, the abundance of cases means there's a bit less learning what preposition goes with what verb. In English, for example, you wait for somebody. In German it's warten auf (plus accusative!). "Auf" means "on", and if you mistakenly use warten auf with the dative, you'd be saying that you're literally leaning or standing on somebody while you're waiting!

[Rob A.]

Oh. Well, if it's that hard of a question, I guess I'd be better off learning from classes. The hard part is finding classes, but I will try.

I think you can get a good start from online resources....

Here's a nice, succinct listing of Finnish cases:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/finnish-cases.html

....not all of the cases have the same importance in day to day language....The "fifteenth case...the "accusative" is argued over by the grammarians ...(apparently only the pronouns have unique case endings in the accusative...sort of like English pronouns, I guess... )...otherwise the case is similar to the genitive and the nominative. And the last three cases occur infrequently.... So that leaves eleven, active day to day cases. Of these, six are "locative" cases indicating movement...either literally or figuratively, ....in, to, into, at, onto, off, from, etc. Another case indicates "transitioning"...

And now we have four ....One indicates the idea of "being"; the remaining three are the "biggies"...the "nominative" is the basic form and is the usual "subject case"; the "genitive" has the sense of possession, ....this includes "possession" in the sense the English possessive case is used, but is also used for "objects" and is frequently...maybe that should be, "always"??.... used with postpositions.... The "partitive" is the real "biggie" and, besides other uses, such as with numbers ....it has the general sense of "on-going actions"....things that are not, or have not, or will not be completed....

Hank's example captures well the essence of the partitive case:

Soldier is in the hospital: Kukusha ampui minua.
Soldier is in front of St. Peter: Kukusha ampui minut.

And you say theres no difference
Soldier is in the hospital: Kukusha ampui minua.
Soldier is in front of St. Peter: Kukusha ampui minut.

And you say theres no difference

.... a nice, concise example of a "classic"' distinction made by using the partitive case.... with the partitive, you are "not dead yet"...the effects of the shooting are still ongoing...with the nominative...(accusative) the effects of the shooting are complete..."you're dead".....

That's the "bare bones" of the Finnish case system...then, there are the plural forms, which I'm having lots of trouble with...

Filling in all the subtleties will take a lifetime to learn.... But at least it's not Latin.... Latin may have fewer cases, but you have to deal with gender .....and different declensions will often use the same endings....depending on the basic word, the gender and the case... ...at least with Finnish, gender is a non-issue....

Well, that's my take on it... "corrections" will be gratefully and respectfully received....

[Rip]

.... a nice, concise example of a "classic"' distinction made by using the partitive case.... with the partitive, you are "not dead yet"...the effects of the shooting are still ongoing...with the nominative...(accusative) the effects of the shooting are complete..."you're dead".....

The verb 'Naida' of course is example with similar but even more distinct difference in meaning. With accusative the meaning is to marry (the whole person and at least in theory for the rest of ones life), while partitive implies a more temporary union (also involving only a limited number of body parts).

[tuulen]

...Of these, six are "locative" cases indicating movement...either literally or figuratively,...

lol Yes, it was the *figurative* sense which prompted my comment about requiring a small book's worth of explanation!

...then, there are the plural forms, which I'm having lots of trouble with...

Yes, the plural forms go into that small book, too!

[Pursuivant]

Theres also the question of tense...
minut tapetaan

but you cannot say
minut on tapettu

[onkko]

Theres also the question of tense...
minut tapetaan

but you cannot say
minut on tapettu

Yes you can, if youre poisoned or ghost

[AldenG]

The verb 'Naida' of course is example with similar but even more distinct difference in meaning. With accusative the meaning is to marry (the whole person and at least in theory for the rest of ones life), while partitive implies a more temporary union (also involving only a limited number of body parts).

Much like the apple, I suppose. Sometimes you eat the whole apple. Other times you just sample it.

[Rob A.]

I was thinking a little more about how I explained this:

.... a nice, concise example of a "classic"' distinction made by using the partitive case.... with the partitive, you are "not dead yet"...the effects of the shooting are still ongoing...with the nominative...(accusative) the effects of the shooting are complete..."you're dead".....

...I'm now thinking a better way to explain this would be with the partitive, it is simply that the action is "incomplete"...you were "shot", but the "shooting" was incomplete...you did not "die".... I think this might be a better way of explaining the use of the partitive, minua ...and if you "die", the "shooting" action is complete..and so the use of the accusative (nominative)...minut...


Here's another example of the use of case endings....a while ago I was "practicing" with a Finnish translation of a passage from "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"....

The English version is well known:

"Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion ;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.
Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink ;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink"....

Here it is in Finnish....apparently not a great translation....as far as I know this isn't by Yrjö Jylhä...:

"Päivästä päivään, päivästä päivään
Olimme jumissa ilman ilmavirtaa tai liikettä
Yhtä hyödytön kuin maalattu laiva maalatun meren yläpuolella
Vettä, vettä kaikkialla ja kaikki lankut kutistuivat
Vettä, vettä kaikkialla eikä yhtään tippaa juotavaksi"

....and here is my "parsing"....using "literal English":

"Päivästä (elative case ending, "-stä"...with the sense of "from") päivään (illative ending with the sense of "to", päivästä päivään ....Literally meaning something like: "From day to day; from day to day"

Olimme (2nd person plural past tense ="we were" jumissa (I believe this is an example of the third infinitive with the meaning of "stuck" ....the inessive case is used...the static state of being "in" something...) ilman (one of the few Finnish prepositions...meaning "without" ilmavirtaa (the partitve form of "ilmavirta", meaning "air current"...a noun ....and nouns following a Finnish preposition are always in the partitive...but I don't know why....) tai (conjunction meaning "or") liikettä (the partitive form of "liike"="motion")...."We were stuck without air current or motion"

Yhtä hyödytön kuin ( this means "as useless as"...and idiomatic expression...Literally meaning something like "one useless like" ..."Yhtä" is the partitive form of "yksi" ...I don't know why it has to be in the partitive...) maalattu ( a past participle verbal adjective meaning "painted") laiva (a noun...in nominative case...the subject of the clause, meaning "ship") maalatun meren yläpuolella (this is complicated..."maalatun" is the same past participle verbal adjective but with the genitive ending because "yläpuolella" is a Finnish postposition...adjectives and nouns associated with postpositions almost always take the genitive case ending...."meren" is "merI" meaning "sea" in the genitive...."yläpuolella" has the adessive case ending...probably a "fixed" expression???....)..."As useless as a painted ship, on a painted sea "

Vettä, vettä ( this is "vesi"="water" in the partitive...probably because it is "incomplete ...not all the water in the world... ) kaikkialla (this means "everywhere" with a static sense..but I'm not sure how to describe this, other than to say it's an adverb....) ja (a conjunction meaning "and") kaikki (the nominative form of "all") lankut (meaning "planks"...plural nominative) kutistuivat (3rd person plural form, past tense, of the verb "kutistua"="to shrink")[/i]..."Water, water all around and all the planks have shrunk"

Vettä, vettä kaikkialla eikä ( 3rd person negative conjunction with the meaning of "and not") yhtään (from "yksi" meaning "one"...I think it might be an adverbial form... I "m not sure...) tippaa (partitve form of "tippa"="drop"...probably in the partitive because of the negative statement...) juotavaksi (from "juoda"=to drink" it's a passive present participle in the translative case...probably because the action is ongoing)"..."Water, water all around, and not one drop to drink"

Wheeew!!...that was tough...But good practice....

[skandagupta]

You`re good! Kymmenen pistettä ja papukaijamerkki