Partitive Exercise

[Rob A.]

I thought this might be an interesting "partitive" exercise....Here are several sentences all having the same general theme:

Paikkoja on vapaana.

Paikkoja on vapaita.

Paikat ovat vapaita.

Paikat ovat vapaat.

Basically these sentences are saying, "Seats are available."....but each has a different sense, including possibly being grammatically meaningless. Rather than translating these, I wonder if someone could describe the sense each of these sentences conveys.....even if it's nonsensical.....

[Jukka Aho]

I thought this might be an interesting "partitive" exercise....Here are several sentences all having the same general theme: [...] Basically these sentences are saying, "Seats are available."....but each has a different sense, including possibly being grammatically meaningless. Rather than translating these, I wonder if someone could describe the sense each of these sentences conveys.....even if it's nonsensical.....:D :D

Paikka is a bit more general word than “seat”. It can refer to seats, standing-room-only, parking space and whatnot. The plain basic meaning is “place”, “location”, or “room for something”. But yes, it is typically used in contexts where you’re referring to reserved seating so lets go with that assumption here:

Paikkoja on vapaana.

“Seats are available.”
This is the neutral version you’d likely see on a ticket reservation website, for example.

Paikkoja on vapaita.

This one has a bit odd “poetic” feel to it. (Yoda-speak?)
“Seats/places there are which are available/free.”

Changing the word order would remove the poetic feel:

On vapaita paikkoja.

Now it could be interpreted just as a statement of a general fact, or with a bit of emphasis on the word on, as an emphatically affirmative sentence:
“There are available seats [in case you had any doubt about that.]”

Paikat ovat vapaat.

“The seats [we have been discussing before] are [now] available [as a set].”

Paikat ovat vapaita.

You’re now considering the availability of each individual seat separately.
“The seats [we have been discussing before] are [now] available [each].”

This discussion is related to the last two examples. As far as practical usage goes, it doesn’t really matter which one of those two you would use in this context.

[garoowood]

Here comes my question:
Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat.
Those five boys[we have been talking about] are rich[as a set].
Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaita.
Those five boys[we have been talking about] are rich[each].
Can I say so? Does it have anything to do with live things? What if I change "poikaa" and "pojat" to "huonekaluja" and "huonekalut"?

If yes, I suppose "Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat Japanilaiset[as a set]" is correct? But in the last thread, you said this would mean they are the only Japs. If that is the case, would Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat. have the meaning that those five boys are the only rich boys?

I thought I understood somehow after last discussion but obviously I am not.

[EP]

would Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat. have the meaning that those five boys are the only rich boys?

Yes. All the rest are paupers, those boys the only rich people in the place.

[garoowood]

I got an idea, when you want to use the nominative plural as the predicative, you should somehow limit the range you refer to.
Like: Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat Espoossa.

But
"Makuuhuoneen seinät ovat valkoiset."
means in the bedroom, the walls are the only white things, the floor, bookshelf and other things inside the bedroom are not in white? The range is the bedroom.

[Pursuivant]

"Makuuhuoneen seinät ovat valkoiset."

Thats just a statement of fact...

[Jukka Aho]

I got an idea, when you want to use the nominative plural as the predicative, you should somehow limit the range you refer to.

That’s a good starting point, at least when referring to a group of individuals who can hardly be viewed as a “uniform set”, uniformly sharing some common property as a set. So the basic rule would probably be: if it’s about individuals, and If in doubt, use the partitive.

Like: Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat Espoossa.

Still sounds a bit weird. Now it would appear to mean they’re rich in Espoo but not elsewhere.

This would work: Nuo viisi poikaa ovat ainoat rikkaat ihmiset Espoossa.
Or this: Nuo viisi poikaa ovat Espoon ainoat rikkaat ihmiset.

But
"Makuuhuoneen seinät ovat valkoiset."
means in the bedroom, the walls are the only white things, the floor, bookshelf and other things inside the bedroom are not in white? The range is the bedroom.

Not really. It just means they’re a set of white walls, sharing the property “white” in some uniform way.

Now why doesn’t this work with “Nuo miehet ovat japanilaiset”? I think it is because japanilainen can be thought of being, on one hand, an adjective, and on another, a noun. When referring to where people are from, and the word japanilaiset appears alone and not as an attribute to another word, the “nationality” (noun) interpretation takes precedence: “Nuo miehet ovat japanilaiset” gets interpreted as “Those men are the Japanese [people].” Whereas if you said “Nuo seinät ovat japanilaiset” the word japanilaiset would be taken as an adjective because the other interpretation (thinking walls as people) wouldn’t make any sense: “Those walls are [of] Japanese [origin or style].”

So what’s the deal with rikkaat, then? I think it is probably the same thing, in the end. Rikkaat could mean “rich” as a uniform property (adjective) applied to the entire “set” you’re talking about, or it could simply mean “the rich”; the entire social class of people who are categorized as being rich. The word rikkaat (in sense “the rich”) is actually often used this way (as a nominalized adjective) in Finnish, contrasting it with köyhät (“the poor”; another nominalized adjective.) So when it appears in a sentence alone – and not as an attribute to some other word – it is easy to interpret it as a reference to “the collective of rich people in general”.

[Rob A.]

I got an idea, when you want to use the nominative plural as the predicative, you should somehow limit the range you refer to.
Like: Nuo viisi poikaa(pojat) ovat rikkaat Espoossa.

But
"Makuuhuoneen seinät ovat valkoiset."
means in the bedroom, the walls are the only white things, the floor, bookshelf and other things inside the bedroom are not in white? The range is the bedroom.

Yes....but that isn't the situation in your example. The example is a copular sentence and valkoiset...in the nominative plural.... is a subject complement....as P. says, this is simply a statement of fact. Try an example with an active verb:

Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiselle. ...I think valkoiselle is right...but I'm just guessing... ....Oh and I think here it has to be singular....

But, if you said, Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle. I think this would imply you "will" be painting the walls at some future time.

....and Maalari maalasi makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle. ....means that the painting has been completed... But seinät here is NOT in the nominative case, it's the accusative plural...which happens to take the same form as the nominative plural.

Then there is this

Makuuhuoneen seiniä on maalannut valkoiselle.....

I hope this is all correct...I'm sure I've messed up some of the grammar...but hopefully not too much....

[Upphew]

Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiselle. ...I think valkoiselle is right...but I'm just guessing... ....Oh and I think here it has to be singular....

So there is a painter, the artistic kind, that is painting bedroom walls to the white.. canvas?

But, if you said, Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle. I think this would imply you "will" be painting the walls at some future time.

Noup, he is doing it right now (on maalaamassa). But as he is doing so, he is not here. "Missä maalaaja on?" "Maalaaja on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle kankaalle"

You don't paint bedroom walls to white, but with white (valkoisella), unless you are doing some artsyfartsy painting.

[Jukka Aho]

Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiselle. ...I think valkoiselle is right...but I'm just guessing...:D

That should be in the translative:

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.

The elative, which is what you used, would mean “...painting the walls for (-lle) the white.” (For “the white” who? For “the white” what?)

Oh and I think here it has to be singular

Could be either in the singular or in the plural:

    ...maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.
    This would mean he’s painting them white (in some general sense.)

    ...maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoisiksi.
    This would mean he’s painting them white (each).

No real practical difference here, just a bit different viewpoint/expression.

But, if you said, Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle. I think this would imply you "will" be painting the walls at some future time.

Actually not. Choosing seinät over the partitive (seiniä) simply means the expectation is that the walls will get painted completely, in the end. The essive (valkoiselle) needs to be changed to the translative (valkoiseksi) in this sentence as well.

So, to compare those two:

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.
    “The painter is painting the bedroom walls white.” This is what is happening at
    the moment but no implication is made as to whether he will actually finish the job.

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.
    “The painter is painting the bedroom walls white.” This is what is happening at
    the moment and it is implied that he will finish the job. Or at least
    that’s the current expectation.

and Maalari maalasi makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle. ....means that the painting has been completed

Correct, expect that should be:

    Maalari maalasi makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

But seinät here is NOT in the nominative case, it's the accusative plural...which happens to take the same form as the nominative plural.

Or... they’re one and the same here. ;) A matter of viewpoint I guess.

Makuuhuoneen seiniä on maalannut valkoiselle.....:D :D

Corrected version:

Makuuhuoneen seinät on maalattu valkoiseksi.

If you said...

    Makuuhuoneen seiniä on maalattu valkoiseksi.

...that would imply the paint job is unfinished; the walls have only been painted partially, this far.

[Jukka Aho]

Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiselle. ...I think valkoiselle is right...but I'm just guessing...:D ....Oh and I think here it has to be singular....

So there is a painter, the artistic kind, that is painting bedroom walls to the white.. canvas?

An 18th century Southern States interpretation:

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiselle isännälle.

You don't paint bedroom walls to white, but with white (valkoisella)

Oh. Yes, that’s possible too.

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoisella [värillä/maalilla].
    “The painter is painting the bedroom walls with white [color/paint].”

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.
    “The painter is painting the bedroom walls white.” (The walls will turn
    to white in the process; hence the translative.)

[Rob A.]

Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiselle. ...I think valkoiselle is right...but I'm just guessing...

That should be in the translative:

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.

The elative, which is what you used, would mean “...painting the walls for (-lle) the white.” (For “the white” who? For “the white” what?)

Thanks...Yes, I see that....I was guessing with my version, but the translative makes sense to me ...the notion that while the walls are being painted, they are "becoming" white. And I suppose this would always apply with an active verb.... No matter the tense....the act of painting implies that the "walls" are in-transition to "white".....

Oh and I think here it has to be singular

Could be either in the singular or in the plural:

    ...maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.
    This would mean he’s painting them white (in some general sense.)

    ...maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoisiksi.
    This would mean he’s painting them white (each).

No real practical difference here, just a bit different viewpoint/expression.

And so I think I can assume, then, ???? ...that it's a matter of emphasis... If the emphasis is on "each" of the walls becoming white, you would use the plural; if it's just the general idea that all the walls in question as a group are becoming white, then the singular...???.....

But, if you said, Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiselle. I think this would imply you "will" be painting the walls at some future time.

Actually not. Choosing seinät over the partitive (seiniä) simply means the expectation is that the walls will get painted completely, in the end. The essive (valkoiselle) needs to be changed to the translative (valkoiseksi) in this sentence as well.

So, to compare those two:

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.
    “The painter is painting the bedroom walls white.” This is what is happening at
    the moment but no implication is made as to whether he will actually finish the job.

    Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.
    “The painter is painting the bedroom walls white.” This is what is happening at
    the moment and it is implied that he will finish the job. Or at least
    that’s the current expectation.

Would the passive voice change things?...Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

....would this imply that in the future, the walls will be painted white?? Or, would I need a few more words to clarify that nothing has started yet, but at some point the act of painting will start....???

And what would this sentence imply..???..Maalataan makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi..... Are we, unequivocally, back in the present tense???....

....

But seinät here is NOT in the nominative case, it's the accusative plural...which happens to take the same form as the nominative plural.

Or... they’re one and the same here. A matter of viewpoint I guess.

Yes, I suppose so....there are grammarians who take the view that the accusative isn't really a "fully-fledged" Finnish language case..... At least for now, I like to think in terms of an accusative case as it eases the learning process a bit.....Maybe I'll start putting my references to the "accusative" case in quotes .....

Makuuhuoneen seiniä on maalannut valkoiselle.....

Corrected version:

Makuuhuoneen seinät on maalattu valkoiseksi.

If you said...

    Makuuhuoneen seiniä on maalattu valkoiseksi.

...that would imply the paint job is unfinished; the walls have only been painted partially, this far.

Thanks...and I mistakenly used the active past participle, "maalannut", instead of the passive past participle, "maalattu" ....Easy, peasy... once it's pointed out ...

[Jukka Aho]

Maalari on maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.

[...] the translative makes sense to me ...the notion that while the walls are being painted, they are "becoming" white. And I suppose this would always apply with an active verb.... No matter the tense....the act of painting implies that the "walls" are in-transition to "white"..... :D

Yes. The translative case can be used for any “transitional” process regardless of whether it has already happened, is happening right now, or will happen in the future.

    Vesi oli muuttunut viiniksi.
    Vesi on muuttunut viiniksi.
    Vesi muuttui viiniksi.
    Vesi muuttuu viiniksi.

Oh and I think here it has to be singular

Could be either in the singular or in the plural:

    ...maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.
    This would mean he’s painting them white (in some general sense.)

    ...maalaamassa makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoisiksi.
    This would mean he’s painting them white (each).

No real practical difference here, just a bit different viewpoint/expression.

And so I think I can assume, then, ???? ...that it's a matter of emphasis... If the emphasis is on "each" of the walls becoming white, you would use the plural; if it's just the general idea that all the walls in question as a group are becoming white, then the singular...???..... :D

That’s how it goes, yes.

The essive (valkoiselle)

That should read “the allative (valkoiselle)”. Sorry for the confusion, I’m not sure how “the essive” got in there.

Would the passive voice change things?...Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

....would this imply that in the future, the walls will be painted white?? Or, would I need a few more words to clarify that nothing has started yet, but at some point the act of painting will start....???

That sentence could be interpreted meaning either the present time or the future, depending on the context. Consider the following dialogue:

     — Mitä siellä tehdään juuri nyt?
     — Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

...versus...

     — Mitä siellä tehdään huomenna?
     — Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

The implication is the paint job will be finished, in both cases.

And what would this sentence imply..???..Maalataan makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi..... Are we, unequivocally, back in the present tense???....:D

Works both in the present tense and in the “future interpretation” of the present tense...

     — Mitä siellä tehdään juuri nyt?
     — Maalataan makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.

     — Mitä siellä tehdään huomenna?
     — Maalataan makuuhuoneen seiniä valkoiseksi.

...but now there’s no built-in implication that the job would actually be finished. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.

Yes, I suppose so....there are grammarians who take the view that the accusative isn't really a "fully-fledged" Finnish language case..... :D At least for now, I like to think in terms of an accusative case as it eases the learning process a bit.....Maybe I'll start putting my references to the "accusative" case in quotes .....:D

No need for that, it’s a useful device... but sometimes you can think of it both ways. (And there are genuine accusative forms in Finnish, of course... the personal pronouns and the pronoun kuka have those.)

[Rob A.]

Thanks

Would the passive voice change things?...Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

....would this imply that in the future, the walls will be painted white?? Or, would I need a few more words to clarify that nothing has started yet, but at some point the act of painting will start....???

That sentence could be interpreted meaning either the present time or the future, depending on the context. Consider the following dialogue:

     — Mitä siellä tehdään juuri nyt?
     — Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

...versus...

     — Mitä siellä tehdään huomenna?
     — Maalataan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

The implication is the paint job will be finished, in both cases.

How would you translate a direct statement such as this??... (using as few words as possible, without sacrificing clarity):

"I will paint the bedroom walls white."

In English, of course, this is the sort of statement a "male of the house" would make....definite, unequivocal, but without any precise "performance criteria" established....just some time in the future....

I have read that in colloquial Finnish you can incorporate the verb, tulla....but this apparently is not acceptable in standard Finnish:

i. e. Tulen maalata makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi....OK...???

Yes, I suppose so....there are grammarians who take the view that the accusative isn't really a "fully-fledged" Finnish language case..... At least for now, I like to think in terms of an accusative case as it eases the learning process a bit.....Maybe I'll start putting my references to the "accusative" case in quotes .....

No need for that, it’s a useful device... but sometimes you can think of it both ways. (And there are genuine accusative forms in Finnish, of course... the personal pronouns and the pronoun kuka have those.)

OK... .... I have read that pronouns are the most conversative element of just about any language.... In English, they are the only remnants of a once-extensive English case system...(arguably the English possessive ('s)...is still a sort of case ending, though the basic word itself is barely changed)..... Nevertheless.....using an "object case" does help clarify one's thinking...

[Jukka Aho]

How would you translate a direct statement such as this??... (using as few words as possible, with sacrificing clarity)

"I will paint the bedroom walls white."

[...] definite, unequivocal, but without any precise "performance criteria" established....just some time in the future....

That would be...

    Maalaan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoisiksi.

In practice, of course, I’d say nothing of the sort, but something like this:

(Standing in the bedroom, looking around:) Mä maalaan nää seinät valkosiks.

I have read that in colloquial Finnish you can incorporate the verb, tulla....but this apparently is not acceptable in standard Finnish:

i. e. Tulen maalata makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi....OK...???

That would be tulla + the -ma infinitive of the required verb in the illative case

    Tulen maalaamaan makuuhuoneen seinät valkoiseksi.

Here, the verb tulla is basically functioning as the Finnish equivalent of the English auxiliary verb “will” or “shall”. This kind of usage is quite common but has traditionally been frowned upon by the purists as clumsy “foreign” style – an attempt to emulate the future tense of the Germanic languages. Most modern readers probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid about it these days but avoiding it is still seen as better and more refined style than using it.

Using tulla as an auxiliary verb is not really a feature of colloquial language, though – the tulla structure is more commonly seen in writing, especially in lazy translations from a Germanic language to Finnish.

If you needed to express the original example sentence in colloquial language – emphasizing the future-tense interpretation – you’d probably say something like this:

    Mä meinaan maalata noi makuuhuoneen seinät valkosiks.

meinata = a colloquial synonym of aikoa
noi = a colloquial variant of nuo