Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Moderator: Varislintu

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2013-11-06, 8:18

Virankannos wrote:Tuo lause ei kuulosta minunkaan korviini hyvältä. Siinä ovat jotenkin menneet erilaiset rakenteet sekaisin, ja tulos on hankala. Googlailin vähän ja löysin seuraavat esimerkit, joihin muoto oltavaksi mielestäni sopii:
    Maksimiaika, joka vedessä enintään suositellaan oltavaksi, on puolitoista tuntia.
    [T]unnilla suositellaan oltavaksi joko paljain jaloin tai lajin omissa, liukuestepohjaisissa sukissa.
    On se kumma,suomessa
    [sic] kyllä vaaditaan oltavaksi MAASSA MAAN TAVALLA - -.
    Onko tämä loma nyt vain tuomittu yksin oltavaksi.


Joo, nuo kuulostavat hyviltä. :) Nyt tietysti tuntuu, että miksi minä en noita tullut ajatelleeksi kun esimerkkejä päässäni hain.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Iván
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 755
Joined: 2012-04-07, 12:35
Real Name: Iván
Gender: male
Country: ES Spain (España)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Iván » 2013-11-13, 12:52

Hei! Mietinpä tässä vaan, että oliko meillä "How do you sound in Finnish"- aiheena? Tämä aihe on sitä varten, että voidaan lähettää äänityksiä toisten kuunneltaviksi ja arvosteltaviksi.
Minkä nuorena oppii, sen vanhana taitaa.

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2013-11-13, 13:54

Iván wrote:Hei! Mietinpä tässä vaan, että oliko meillä "How do you sound in Finnish"- aiheena? Tämä aihe on sitä varten, että voidaan lähettää äänityksiä toisten kuunneltaviksi ja arvosteltaviksi.


Moi! On kyllä sellainen viestiketju, joo :) :

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=16193
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Iván
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 755
Joined: 2012-04-07, 12:35
Real Name: Iván
Gender: male
Country: ES Spain (España)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Iván » 2013-11-13, 19:56

No selvä. Minun olisi täytynyt etsiä tätä aihetta kaikkialta ennen kysymistä. Kiitos, kiitos!
Minkä nuorena oppii, sen vanhana taitaa.

User avatar
September
Posts: 35
Joined: 2013-06-16, 5:37
Gender: female
Location: Clatskanie, Oregon
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby September » 2014-01-01, 22:41

What is the difference between the verbs voida and osata?

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2014-01-02, 20:24

September wrote:What is the difference between the verbs voida and osata?


Osata means "to know how to". Voida corresponds broadly to the English verb "can", and more specifically to "be able to". The confusion comes often when English uses "can" to mean "to know how to".

Can you speak Finnish? (Do you know how to?)
Osaatko puhua suomea?

Can you speak Finnish? (Could you be so kind as to?)
Voitko puhua suomea?

Can you take time off work? (Are you able to?)
Voitko ottaa vapaata töistä?
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-10, 7:58

Swienegel wrote:
Ykkönen
Kakkonen
Kolmonen
Nelonen
Viitonen
Kutonen/Kuutonen
Seitsikko (just learned from Wiktionary this word exists... normal is colloqial „seiska“)
Kahdeksikko (any normal person says „kasi“)
Yhdeksikkö („ysi“)


Ah, so it exists in cousin-Finnish too! :D Cool, I always feel such a caveman when I have to use the plain numbers in most foreign languages for that.

Swienegel wrote:Fun fact I also just learned from Wikipedia:
Erään teorian mukaan sana "kahdeksan" muodostuu vartalosta "kaksi" ja loppuosasta "-eksan", joka tarkoittaa "ei ole".
Vanhemman teorian mukaan loppuosaksi on luettava "-deksan", jolloin taustalla olisi latinan kymmentä tarkoittava sana. Joka tapauksessa kahdeksan olisi johdettu merkityksestä "kaksi pois kymmenestä".

Hope this was helpful.


I never thought about this theory, but it really makes sense, as in Estonian too:

Üheksa - ühe is genetive form of üks - one
Kaheksa - kahe is genitive form of kaks - two

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-12, 15:26

Hei,
I have a few questions about some Finnish sentences. If you could have a look at them, please.

Hän haluaa lainata Hilkan kellon. But: The same person says to Hilkka: "Saanko lainata kelloa?"

I understand the accusativus in the first sentence. But why is it partitivus in the second? Thank you.

Then: Plural vs singular

Alan työt vasta huomenna. But: Voin aloittaa työn jo kello kahdeksan tai vasta kello yhdeksän.

Why is työ in plural there and singular accusativus here?

Then:
Meillä on työpaikalla aamulla aika vapaata. - In my understanding the sentence means: At work, we have a free choice/flexible working time in the morning.
Is it correct?
Does it mean Finnish expresses it like this: Aika on vapaata - free [choice of]/flexible time

Could the nominativ exist there only in the following sentence and with a different meaning?: Meillä on aamulla vapaa aika(a?). - We have a free-time/break in the morning.
Is my thinking correct?

Thanks!

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2014-01-12, 18:36

In the first case, we have the subtle expressiveness of partitive. :) Partitive is often used in situations when an item is not used up completely or an action performed completely and uniquely. In this case, you could grammatically use either case in either sentence. But accusative feels more fitting in the first sentence because there is only one Hilkka's clock, and one instance of borrowing it so accusative underlines the uniqueness of the situation. In the second, partitive underlines the general and possibly repetitive nature of the borrowing, and how clocks are not consumed by this action.

Työ is one of those things Finns have started to express in plural alongside the singular form. It's just a habit, usually without any particular difference in meaning.

In the third sentence, "aika" does not mean time, but the word "rather". They are homonyms. So the sentence means: "At our workplace we have rather free mornings." And "free" in this context could refer to either free from being busy, or free from strict rules (like you also interpreted it, i.e. flexibility), or a lack of customers or something like that.

Even when talking about literal free time, like in your further example, vapaata needs to be in partitive, so it would be: Meillä on aamulla vapaata aikaa.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-13, 14:37

Varislintu wrote:In the first case, we have the subtle expressiveness of partitive. :) Partitive is often used in situations when an item is not used up completely or an action performed completely and uniquely. In this case, you could grammatically use either case in either sentence. But accusative feels more fitting in the first sentence because there is only one Hilkka's clock, and one instance of borrowing it so accusative underlines the uniqueness of the situation. In the second, partitive underlines the general and possibly repetitive nature of the borrowing, and how clocks are not consumed by this action.

Varislintu,
Thank you very much!
Could you please also tell me the most closest English translation of

Saanko lainata kelloa?
Saanko lainata kellon?

By how I know it, and by how you explained it to me, I have my ideas, but I want to hear it from a native-speaker. (Is it possible that the one who would like to borrow -Antti- didn't know that Hilkka has only one clock? )

Then, you are saying that, Hilkan kellon could actually be Hilkan kelloa also? I thought partitive is not possible in such a construction.
Or wait, with partitive, it would mean Hilkka has several clocks. Am I on the right track?
Varislintu wrote:Työ is one of those things Finns have started to express in plural alongside the singular form. It's just a habit, usually without any particular difference in meaning.

Thank you.

Varislintu wrote:In the third sentence, "aika" does not mean time, but the word "rather". They are homonyms. So the sentence means: "At our workplace we have rather free mornings." And "free" in this context could refer to either free from being busy, or free from strict rules (like you also interpreted it, i.e. flexibility), or a lack of customers or something like that.

Even when talking about literal free time, like in your further example, vapaata needs to be in partitive, so it would be: Meillä on aamulla vapaata aikaa.

I see. That construction doesn't exist in Hungarian. I think most of the time I will say 'vapaampi' (kuin tavallisesti). Will that sound unfinnish? :)

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2014-01-14, 7:53

I can try, but the sentences are very close to identical in meaning in English:

Saanko lainata kelloa?
May I borrow a watch (temporarily)?

Saanko lainata kellon?
May I borrow a watch? (I want to take it into my posession.)

The difference is very subtle, and doesn't even necessarily carry any difference in intention. But using accusative in the latter sentence does imply completing one action surrounding the entire clock, and with a verb like lainata, this would imply that you take the clock into your posession (instead of just glancing at it while it's still on the other's wrist). So there is implication that you might take the clock for a longer time, or further away, perhaps for the span of some event you would use it in:

Voinko lainata kellon pääsykokeen ajaksi?
Can I borrow a watch for the duration of the entrance exam?

Also, when talking about borrowing a book from the library, it is preferrable to use accusative, because the book is taken into your posession and out of the library for a longer time, and it's an action that is perceived as concludable:

Lainasin kirjan kirjastosta.
I borrowed a book from the library.

But otherwise, partitive would in general be more usual to use with lainata, because of the nature of that action (temporary, doesn't consume the item).

So it's not really about the number of items, rather about the perceived nature of the action and its uniqueness. This is one of the trickier features of Finnish, so I hope my explanation made some sense. :P

-----------
Vapaampi is not unfinnish sounding, but note that if you are talking about time (which is an unquantified substance) then it needs to be in partitive: vapaampaa. If you talk about yourself, you can say vapaampi:

Minulla on vapaampaa (aikaa) aamuisin.
Vs.
Minä olen vapaampi aamuisin.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-14, 19:00

Varislintu wrote:I can try, but the sentences are very close to identical in meaning in English:

Saanko lainata kelloa?
May I borrow a watch (temporarily)?

Saanko lainata kellon?
May I borrow a watch? (I want to take it into my posession.)

The difference is very subtle, and doesn't even necessarily carry any difference in intention. But using accusative in the latter sentence does imply completing one action surrounding the entire clock, and with a verb like lainata, this would imply that you take the clock into your posession (instead of just glancing at it while it's still on the other's wrist). So there is implication that you might take the clock for a longer time, or further away, perhaps for the span of some event you would use it in:

Voinko lainata kellon pääsykokeen ajaksi?
Can I borrow a watch for the duration of the entrance exam?

Also, when talking about borrowing a book from the library, it is preferrable to use accusative, because the book is taken into your posession and out of the library for a longer time, and it's an action that is perceived as concludable:

Lainasin kirjan kirjastosta.
I borrowed a book from the library.

But otherwise, partitive would in general be more usual to use with lainata, because of the nature of that action (temporary, doesn't consume the item).

So it's not really about the number of items, rather about the perceived nature of the action and its uniqueness. This is one of the trickier features of Finnish, so I hope my explanation made some sense. :P

-----------
Vapaampi is not unfinnish sounding, but note that if you are talking about time (which is an unquantified substance) then it needs to be in partitive: vapaampaa. If you talk about yourself, you can say vapaampi:

Minulla on vapaampaa (aikaa) aamuisin.
Vs.
Minä olen vapaampi aamuisin.


Thank you very much Varislintu. I really appreciate the thorough explanations.
It makes more sense now with lainata.
Though I could easier tell a sample sentence in Hungarian for your accusative and partitive now, it still seems so, this is the only part of Finnish grammar where you are really Balti-Finns and we are really Ugors :) Different and no intelligible cases/impressions every time.

Kölcsönöz and kikölcsönöz truly doesn't mean exactly the same in Hungarian either, and the latter one would be lainata+accusative, still it seems so I cannot imply it all the time.

Thank you for the vapaampi, vapaampaa too.

User avatar
blackno1
Posts: 3
Joined: 2014-01-15, 8:18
Real Name: Alyssa
Gender: female
Location: HELL
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby blackno1 » 2014-01-15, 8:45

I'm new and haven't been seriously studying Finnish for too long, it's been about....half a week? So hello everyone! :D

Anyway, I've got a tiny question.

I was reading through some phrases with their appropriate answers and got a little confused.

For one question, they asked: mitä kuuluu? (how are you?) and the answer was: kiitos hyvää (fine, thanks)

Then there was another question, they asked: kuinka voitte? (how are you feeling?) and the answer was: kiitos hyvin (fine, thanks)

what is the difference between kiitos hyvää and kiitos hyvin? IS there a difference, or is it just a variation of the same thing? It threw me off a bit.
Little Miss Scare-All

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-16, 19:08

Varokaa koiraa - how could you must accurately translate it, please?

Especially when there is only one koira in the garden :P (aka: Why can't it be varokaa koiran)

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2014-01-16, 21:58

Levo wrote:Varokaa koiraa - how could you must accurately translate it, please?

Especially when there is only one koira in the garden :P (aka: Why can't it be varokaa koiran)


Bewaring the dog doesn't consume the dog. :) Actually here English uses a similar logic, since they use the preposition "of" (be careful of the dog), which often corresponds to the meaning of the partitive case.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-16, 22:18

Varislintu wrote:
Levo wrote:Varokaa koiraa - how could you must accurately translate it, please?

Especially when there is only one koira in the garden :P (aka: Why can't it be varokaa koiran)


Bewaring the dog doesn't consume the dog. :) Actually here English uses a similar logic, since they use the preposition "of" (be careful of the dog), which often corresponds to the meaning of the partitive case.

:tomato: (this is not for you, but for the logic of the language)

You can't fool me with that... :) :tomato:
Tapaan hänet.
Ü-üüm! Now you are in the corner. Nowhere to go to. I wonder what fairy-tale story Finns come up with for this. Hän is not consumed here either, so with that logic... :P :partyhat: :yep: :popcorn:

User avatar
Naava
Posts: 213
Joined: 2012-01-17, 20:24
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Naava » 2014-01-17, 11:08

Levo wrote:Tapaan hänet.
Ü-üüm! Now you are in the corner. Nowhere to go to. I wonder what fairy-tale story Finns come up with for this.

I'm not completely sure, this is just my own speculation:

I think the difference is in time. With "varokaa koiraa" you have to beware the dog all the time you're there, you can't just "beware once" and then be like ok. But when you meet a person, it's a small moment when you actually meet - the rest is just being together. You could say "tapaan häntä", which means "I meet him/her regularly on purpose".
native:  (fi)
speaks more or less fluently:  (en)
can talk about weird topics in:  (sv)
learning process started:  (ru) &  (et)

User avatar
Levo
Posts: 3226
Joined: 2006-10-29, 10:22
Gender: male
Location: Budapest
Country: HU Hungary (Magyarország)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Levo » 2014-01-17, 12:40

Naava wrote:
Levo wrote:Tapaan hänet.
Ü-üüm! Now you are in the corner. Nowhere to go to. I wonder what fairy-tale story Finns come up with for this.

I'm not completely sure, this is just my own speculation:

I think the difference is in time. With "varokaa koiraa" you have to beware the dog all the time you're there, you can't just "beware once" and then be like ok. But when you meet a person, it's a small moment when you actually meet - the rest is just being together. You could say "tapaan häntä", which means "I meet him/her regularly on purpose".


Naava, thank you!
Especially the last sentence is very useful.

Actually while learning Finnish,

Tavata + accusative
nähdä + accusative make sense with Hungarian logic as well. It's a bit hard to explain indeed, but in our grammar they both mean rather a sudden happening, than a continuos action, and especially not on purpose.
With this logic, it also makes sense that katsoa however attracts partitive. Indeed, I would automatically put it into partitive as well, from a Hungarian perspective too.
So I understood that part really much.

You know, until this point I thought that varoa - vigyázni in Hungarian is rather a sudden decision at a certain moment. But I went on thinking and it concerns the whole bunch of actions, that you start making not to get into trouble... So, it can be taken as continuos... Hm, interesting :)

Naava wrote:You could say "tapaan häntä", which means "I meet him/her regularly on purpose".

With this logic, it is also completely understandable.

Can you imagine a situation, when you say: "Näen hänet."?

The other thing: Yeah, we were taught that verbs expressing emotions also attract partitive.
Minä rakastan sinua - rakastaa + partitive - :S The explanation was: Maybe I love you today, but tomorrow I might not.
Does it really express something like this (besides the main thing)?
Rakastan sinut - why not? :D

Yeah, I know. Because then it is not continuos... and love should be... that is also a logic..
Last edited by Levo on 2014-01-17, 13:32, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2014-01-17, 12:45

Näen hänet kadun toisella puolella.
I see him across the street.

Näen häntä aika usein.
I see (i.e. meet with him) him pretty often.

Rakastan sinua.
I love you.

Rakastan sinut kuoliaaksi.
I will love you to death.

:)
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15266
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

Postby Varislintu » 2014-01-17, 12:47

In other words, Naava is spot on with bringing up the uniqueness vs. the ongoing nature of events in the issue of the partitive.

Actually, sometimes I feel like instead of asking, "why would I use partitive?", it's more fruitful to ask, "why would I use n-accusative?", since often it is the n-accusative that carries a much more limited meaning. :hmm: :)
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)


Return to “Finnish (Suomi)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests