I came across this sentence:
Tuldava wrote:Vean kihla kümne dollari peale.
Moderator:aaakknu
Tuldava wrote:Vean kihla kümne dollari peale.
"Kihla vedama" is an expression that means "to bet", "to make a bet", and since "kihla" in it is already partitive (at least it sounds like partitive), you can't make it refer to the future by using "accusative" -- I guess "kihla vedama" is already perceived as kind of like a process, hence it can not have a definitive result.Tuldava wrote:Vean kihla kümne dollari peale.
E}{pugnator wrote:
http://www.ibs.ee/dict/
A very good Estonian-English-Estonian dictionary. Only its search system is not very appropriate, for instance, if you search for üks you get all entries which have üks in between and this makes it rather impossible to search for small words. In these cases I prefer to use another online dictionary in Estonian. (I'll give the link later).
Aitäh!ainurakne wrote:In my opinion, for the sentence from the translation game that you are referring to, both "et" and "selleks, et" are fine. The difference is that "selleks" puts the emphasis on "for the reason". So, which one to use, depends on the exact context and what you want to say exactly.
But "nii, et" is different. "Nii" usually means "so", "like this", "this way", "in a way", etc...
Although in this context (because there is bunch of stuff after "tuli") I would put "andma" at the very end: "Jeesus Kristus tuli taevast alla maa peale meile igavest elu andma." <- for me personally this feels "more right".Naava wrote:Jeesus Kristus tuli taevast alla maa peale andma meile igavest elu
ainurakne wrote:EDIT: I think it's because the ma-infinitive here indicates relative future, it specifies the start of a process: what is going to happen, and not what the result will be.
I think in this context it's more like a process vs. action with a definitive end result -thing. So, more like "doing some life-giving", not "giving some life".Naava wrote:Ok, I see. Thanks! I thought it as part / whole object -thing, so that what's given is the whole life, not just parts of it.
Yes we have this distinction, but I think that differently from Finnish, it concentrates more on the processness or resultativeness of the action than partialness or wholeness of the object.Does Estonian have this distinction at all or is this some kind of an exception where it doesn't work like that?
You can also compare et anda igavene elu vs. et anda igavest elu.Do you see any difference in the meaning between igavest elu andma and et anda igavene elu?
It looks a lot like our passive "antakse". And even like reconstructed Proto-Finnic passive "andaksen".In Finnish I could also say "antaakseen" in the place of et anda. Something like translative + possessive suffix, I think. Does Estonian have any similar construction?
I think the final "-ne" is the adjectival suffix. "Iga" (every; not to be confused with the other "iga" which means age) should be related to Finnish joka. But I don't know what that "-ve-" stands for. Maybe some kind of contraction or a rudiment of something longer or even a whole word.One more question. Does the word igavene consist of parts iga+vene or is it just one single inseparable unit?
ainurakne wrote:In the first one you concentrate on the end result (came down to earth so that everyone would get eternal life as a result), in the second one you concentrate on the process of giving (came down to earth in order to conduct the eternal-life-giving process).
ainurakne wrote:In Finnish I could also say "antaakseen" in the place of et anda. Something like translative + possessive suffix, I think. Does Estonian have any similar construction?
It looks a lot like our passive "antakse". And even like reconstructed Proto-Finnic passive "andaksen".
ainurakne wrote:I think the final "-ne" is the adjectival suffix. "Iga" (every; not to be confused with the other "iga" which means age) should be related to Finnish joka. But I don't know what that "-ve-" stands for. Maybe some kind of contraction or a rudiment of something longer or even a whole word.One more question. Does the word igavene consist of parts iga+vene or is it just one single inseparable unit?
EDIT: Actually, words "igav" and "igavus" also has the same "-v" after "iga".
Nowadays they are mostly used as boring and boredom respectively, but "igav" should actually mean monotonous, homogeneous, unvaried and thus "igavus" should come pretty close to eternity. Now "igavus" is superseded by "igavik" (as eternity).
Oh snap, I thought you meant difference between partitive and genitive there.Naava wrote:So there's no difference between andma / et anda as such?
OhThat's interesting! But I wanted to know if there's a conjugation or something matching with the meaning rather than words that look alike.
Hmm, now that I rechecked from the etymological dictionary, you are absolutely right. I mixed the two iga-s up.Are you sure it's every and not age? Cf. iänikuinen (lit. age-agey, what's wrong with this language), iankaikkinen and iäisyys. All mean 'eternal', 'never-ending', 'eternity'.
Anyway, looks like it should be igav+ene after all. Does that make any sense? Any theories what ene could be?
ainurakne wrote:They are totally different, although they translate into the same sentence when translated into English.
Then, "andmaks" is pretty equivalent to "et anda".
Maybe igavene is something like ikäväinen.
I'm assuming by antama you mean the agent participle (which I am not very familiar with yet). If so, then there is no such thing in Estonian (as far as I know). The closest thing to it would be either X-i antud lelu (past passive participle) or X-i antav lelu (present passive participle).Naava wrote:This looks very similar to Finnish antamaksi which is a translative of antama, 'given by someone': X:n antama lelu, a toy given by X. Does it have this meaning in Estonian, too?
Hmm, I don't remember when I first noticed that maailm is maa + ilm, but maybe it was more obvious than in Finnish, because in addition to maailm we sometimes also use (rarer) ilmamaa for world and even just ilm or even maa are occasionally used for world.(Btw I've never before noticed that iga and igav come from the same word, even though it's quite obvious... I feel as blind as I felt when I realised that maailm is just maa+ilm!)
ainurakne wrote:Interestingly, we do have a noun "andam" (maybe only vaguely similar to Finnish antama), but I'm not sure if they are in any way related or not.
Also, maybe "andma" is not just pure "antamaan", but maybe a bit of instructive "antaman" has also fused into it. Ma-infinitive is required with the verb "pidama" (as must) and we also have this rare passive ma-infinitive (antama = fi:annetaman) which is only used with the verb "pidama". (more about this here)
Hmm, I don't remember when I first noticed that maailm is maa + ilm, but maybe it was more obvious than in Finnish, because in addition to maailm we sometimes also use (rarer) ilmamaa for world and even just ilm or even maa are occasionally used for world.
I think it's kind of like a tax, an offering or a bribe - so, something that you give away in order to avoid some kind trouble or to gain something.Naava wrote:Could you give an example how you use andam? I'm not quite sure if I understood how it would work as a noun.
It seems to be completely equivalent to "peab antama" in that context, but I had never seen nor heard "tuleb antama" before.I tried to google (yes I know this is the best source ever) and you can also say tulee annettaman. I guess tuleb antama is not possible?
No, wait, I googled again and it seems Päewaleht has used it in 1906. Once.
Maybe it's from reordering "maa ja ilm" in poetic contexts and then fusing them together again.Ilmamaa sounds so strange to me. A bit like suddenly calling football ballfoot instead.
When opting to use only "half" of maailm, then Estonians mostly use ilm istead of maa.But maa is ok for world in Finnish too.
Many of these words are ambiguous enough that they can be translated to maa at least in some contexts, except suit. I am not aware of any meanings of suit that can be interpreted as maa.Tbh, almost anything can be called maa in Finnish.
Which leads me to a new question. How many of the words in the link are called maa in Estonian?
ainurakne wrote:Maybe it's from reordering "maa ja ilm" in poetic contexts and then fusing them together again.Ilmamaa sounds so strange to me. A bit like suddenly calling football ballfoot instead.
When opting to use only "half" of maailm, then Estonians mostly use ilm istead of maa.But maa is ok for world in Finnish too.
I am not aware of any meanings of suit that can be interpreted as maa.
I'm not sure. In colloquial language, I think, ilm is quite common, because it's short and easier to say, especially in compound words (e.g. maailmasõda -> ilmasõda). Maybe older people use it more often than younger.Naava wrote:That's interesting. Which one is more common, ilm or maailm?
Ok, that makes sense. That's actually pretty good way to call them.It seems it's a term from card games: ...
These are called maa in Finnish.
Yes.What if you dropped something on the floor, could you say you dropped it "maha"?
ainurakne wrote:How would you ask what kind suit a card belongs to? "Millaisesta maasta se on?"?
And if it's something sharp that digs into the ground when it falls (like a knife or a shovel, and in case of the actual ground), especially if it stays in the upright position, then I would say "maasse".
Return to “Estonian (Eesti keel)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests