AJAA- partitive question!

[cssc]

Hi, new here.
I'm just learning about partitive verbs, but the examples I have seen are only using the direct object. Does does the indirect object also need to be in the partitive?
Ex:"I drive the car to the store."
And what about the word for 'through', which I understand takes the genetive?
"I drove my car through the field."
Thank you.

[Upphew]

Hi, new here.
I'm just learning about partitive verbs, but the examples I have seen are only using the direct object. Does does the indirect object also need to be in the partitive?
Ex:"I drive the car to the store."
And what about the word for 'through', which I understand takes the genetive?
"I drove my car through the field."
Thank you.

No such thing in Finnish as indirect object.

"Joissakin kielissä, kuten englannissa ja ranskassa, lauseessa voi olla sekä suora että epäsuora objekti. Näistä suora objekti vastaa suomen objektia, mutta epäsuora objekti tulkittaisiin suomalaisittain adverbiaaliksi:

They gave him a medal. (He antoivat hänelle mitalin.)"
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauseenj%C3%A4senet

[jahasjahas]

Ex:"I drive the car to the store."
And what about the word for 'through', which I understand takes the genetive?
"I drove my car through the field."
Thank you.

Let's not leave you hanging.

"I drive the car to the store." would most likely be
"Ajan autolla(adessive) kauppaan(illative)."

You could say "Ajan auton(genitive) kauppaan(illative).", but that sounds more like you're driving the car into the store. Don't do that; it's dangerous and illegal.

Using the partitive ("Ajan autoa(partitive) kauppaan(illative).") would imply that you're currently "completing the process" of driving a car to/into the store. Like your friend calls you and asks you what you're doing, and you answer "Oh, I'm currently driving this car. I'm taking it to the store." (Or "Oh, I'm currently driving this car into the store. I almost managed to get it through the front door. I'll gather some speed on the parking lot and give it another go.")

"I drove my car through the field." = "Ajoin autollani (adessive + possessive suffix) pellon (genitive) läpi."

[Pursuivant]

"I drove my car through the field." = "Ajoin autollani (adessive + possessive suffix) pellon (genitive) läpi."

Note though that means you went a bit offroading.

Ajoin autoni/autollani ojaan/peltoon/metsään.
Imply you went off the road... not planning to do so.

Ajoin autoni/autollani pellolle.
Can mean also that you intended to drive onto the field... but there is a slight possibility you just ended up there.

Ajoin autoni jäälle. Ajoin autollani jäällä.
So the firs implies the ambiguous possibility, the second one is a deliberate action.

The nuances are more or less evident, you don't drive your car into a ditch deliberately...

[onkko]

ajaamattomuudellansakohankonhakon. Ajaisikohamme. ajaamattomuudellaansokahan. ajautumattomuudestaankohan, Ajaisimmekohamme.
Just to @#$% you up
Yep i just invented that but its valid word. Atleast i think so, im drunk enough to invent words so it could be non valid word

[AldenG]

They gave him a medal. (He antoivat hänelle mitalin.)"
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauseenj%C3%A4senet

The Wikipedia article didn't choose a good English-language sentence for that example, because it comes closer to meaning Hänelle annettiin mitali or Hän sai mitalin [siitä]. There is rarely a specific "they" to whom such a sentence refers in English. There's probably a proper grammatical term for this "cosmic they" but I don't know what it is. After all, they're always making up words for this kind of thing.

[Pursuivant]

Using the partitive ("Ajan autoa(partitive) kauppaan(illative).") would imply that you're currently "completing the process" of driving a car to/into the store.

Well, there is the practical application for the HBS case at the in-laws farm in Nowheremaki...
Ajan sontaa pellolle.

[Rob A.]

"I drove my car through the field." = "Ajoin autollani (adessive + possessive suffix) pellon (genitive) läpi."

That's nicely explained...and clear for a beginner.... There really is nothing all that mystical when it comes to the genitive and that type of word that would generally be called a preposition in English.....

If it is a postposition...it will almost always be in the genitive.. .....Ajoin autollani pellon poikki... Just another version of "across" or "through" ....I'm sure there will be nuance differences, but at my level of Finnish, I typically won't always be aware of them.... [Nuances in a language are always tough and I wouldn't worry about that until you've been speaking the language for...oh, I don't know...thirty years or so... I was watching a British TV show yesterday and there were two "rapid-fire" sexual double entendres which I would think were subtle enough they would absolutely be missed by anyone except an alert native speaker....

If it is a preposition, which is not as common in Finnish, it will always be ...I think ...partitive... The only one I can think of at the moment is ilman ...Jukka oli ilman rahaa...

[Edit: Oh...I just thought of a good title for some torch song...maybe Leonard Cohen or someone ...Minä olen ilman sinua........ ]

[AldenG]

I was watching a British TV show yesterday and there were two "rapid-fire" sexual double entendres which I would think were subtle enough they would absolutely be missed by anyone except an alert native speaker....

More along the lines of a P.D. James mystery than a Murdoch Mystery, eh?

[Jukka Aho]

If it is a postposition...it will almost always be in the genitive.. .....Ajoin autollani pellon poikki... Just another version of "across" or "through"

Yep, pellon poikki = “across the field”.

But change that to...

Ajoin autollani peltoa poikki

...and now it means “I was cutting/splitting the field [in two halves; whatever that would mean — just like you could imagine a hand of God doing with some huge heavenly scissors!] with my car; by driving it.” In other words, the partitive makes you want to consider the other meanings of poikki, one of which is “[something that has been (literally)] cut/broken into two pieces”.

Yhtäkkiä oksa raksahti poikki ja mies putosi valittaen halki lehvästön.

If it is a preposition, which is not as common in Finnish, it will always be ...I think ...partitive... The only one I can think of at the moment is ilman ...Jukalla oli ilman rahaa...

(Gee, thanks for bringing that up!)

But actually, it’s Jukka oli ilman rahaa (the pattern is X [nom.] oli ilman Y:tä [part.]), or even Jukka oli rahaton or Jukka oli rahatta.

The most common and straightforward way of expressing this is, however, Jukalla ei ollut rahaa. Just like you wouldn’t normally say “Jukka was without money” in English (as your first choice) but rather “Jukka didn’t have money.”

[Edit: Oh...I just thought of a good title for some torch song...maybe Leonard Cohen or someone ...Minulla on ilman sinua........ :lol: ]

That sounds incomplete and translates as “I have without you” — as if a word was missing.

Minulla on ikävä ilman sinua would be a plausible song title, though.

But your original thought probably went along the lines of Ilman sinua (“Without You”), which would actually be a rather good title for a “torch song”. (Or maybe it’s something best reserved for a cheeky post-break-up song? ;)

[Rob A.]

If it is a postposition...it will almost always be in the genitive.. .....Ajoin autollani pellon poikki... Just another version of "across" or "through"

Yep, pellon poikki = “across the field”.

But change that to...

Ajoin autollani peltoa poikki

...and now it means “I was cutting/splitting the field [in two halves; whatever that would mean — just like you could imagine a hand of God doing with some huge heavenly scissors!] with my car; by driving it.” In other words, the partitive makes you want to consider the other meanings of poikki, one of which is “[something that has been (literally)] cut/broken into two pieces”.

Yhtäkkiä oksa raksahti poikki ja mies putosi valittaen halki lehvästön.

If it is a preposition, which is not as common in Finnish, it will always be ...I think ...partitive... The only one I can think of at the moment is ilman ...Jukalla oli ilman rahaa...

(Gee, thanks for bringing that up!)

But actually, it’s Jukka oli ilman rahaa (the pattern is X [nom.] oli ilman Y:tä [part.]), or even Jukka oli rahaton or Jukka oli rahatta.

The most common and straightforward way of expressing this is, however, Jukalla ei ollut rahaa. Just like you wouldn’t normally say “Jukka was without money” in English (as your first choice) but rather “Jukka didn’t have money.”

[Edit: Oh...I just thought of a good title for some torch song...maybe Leonard Cohen or someone ...Minulla on ilman sinua........ ]

That sounds incomplete and translates as “I have without you” — as if a word was missing.

Minulla on ikävä ilman sinua would be a plausible song title, though.

But your original thought probably went along the lines of Ilman sinua (“Without You”), which would actually be a rather good title for a “torch song”. (Or maybe it’s something best reserved for a cheeky post-break-up song?

Thanks...I see you started working on this before I had caught my mistakes with the minulla on... construction....

I'm now wrapping my mind around the ....peltoa poikki. example...I'll check wiktionary....my first thought is that poikki in this instance is something other than a postposition....

[Rob A.]

I was watching a British TV show yesterday and there were two "rapid-fire" sexual double entendres which I would think were subtle enough they would absolutely be missed by anyone except an alert native speaker....

More along the lines of a P.D. James mystery than a Murdoch Mystery, eh?

Actually it was in that 1990 TV series, "House of Cards"...the original British version.

I've seen it before ...a couple of times....but it is always worth re-watching.....it really is superbly done..... I haven't watched the current American version yet, but I will.....

Oh, hey....how about someone produce a Finnish version, Kekkosen Talo... I'm sure there were lots and lots of shenanigans going on back in his era....

[cssc]

OK, so a partitive verb doesn't always take a partitive object?? Ugh! I thought that was the whole point of having a partitive verb!.

[AldenG]

Actually it was in that 1990 TV series, "House of Cards"...the original British version.

It's in the next three on intentions list.

But I know that you know that I know you were originally referring to Austin Powers.

[Upphew]

OK, so a partitive verb doesn't always take a partitive object?? Ugh! I thought that was the whole point of having a partitive verb!.

There are language constructs that linguistics try to fit in boxes. But language might not fit in existing boxes.
http://www.uusikielemme.fi/partitiiviverbit.html
After reading that you might think that you always drive a car: minä ajan autoa. But I could drive with a car: minä ajan autolla. Or you could drive with my car: sinä ajat autollani?!? While calling me: -Guess what I do now? -Sinä ajat autoani?!?!

"The partitive case (abbreviated PTV or more ambiguously PART) is a grammatical case which denotes "partialness", "without result", or "without specific identity". It is also used in contexts where a subgroup is selected from a larger group, or with numbers."
Many of those cases that you think might need partitive because the partitive verb, don't need one as the deed is fully done, sonta on jo ajettu pellolle, although if all of the !"#¤% haven't been spread then the partitive is relevant, sontaa on jo ajettu pellolle, but in that case there is some more !"#¤% to spread.