Moderator: Forum Administrators
"have" is the stem, so "ve" isn't an inflection. Yet, "ha" is the stem in Swedish, so "r" isn't marked as inflection? o.O
Naava wrote:I literally just waited that Linguaphile would colour the Estonian translation so I could copy the colours to Finnish.
Naava wrote:+ Finnish, Southern Ostrobothnian. I'm not sure what to do with minut / mut, though. Is that 'me' supposed to be accusative?
1st Person Nominative and corresponding gender/number verb forms
two (gender and corresponding dual verb forms)
cat/-s and corresponding gender/number verb forms
have/own or other verb
gender/number form of "to have" or of other verb in combination with a non-nominative case
adessive singular (1st person adessive and adessive forms)
dative (1st person dative and dative forms)
genitive (1st person genitive and genitive forms)
partitive singular (1st person partitive and partitive forms)
Linguaphile wrote:Sometimes I'm just not sure what to do with these color-coded threads. It's interesting to see the differences, but not always easy to fit unrelated languages into the same format.
From what I understand Finnish uses accusative just for pronouns, right? To be honest I don't really understand when to use minut and when to use minua in Finnish. I tend to want to use minua for both like Estonian does with mind.
That's what I meant; distinct forms that are different from genitive and nominative.Naava wrote:No, Finnish uses accusative for nouns, too. It's like the Estonian genitive: it's used for objects and it forms a pair with partitive. But you're right that only the pronouns have distinct accusative forms that don't look like any other case.
Naava wrote:Because the accusative looks like genitive or nominative, some people like to call it genitive-accusative and nominative-accusative. I've also heard "genitive-like accusative" and "nominative-like accusative".
Yes. Some people like me. It's basically like the total object (täissihitis) in Estonian, right? With the partitive case used for partial object (osasihitis)? But the example in this thread is a horrible one to use because not only is it an odd thing to say, you would not use an object at all if it were not a pronoun ( "kissalla on hiiri" > nominative subject). It's just such a weird example and I'm getting confused. I mean, minä rakastan sinua has a partial object for an atelic/incomplete action in partitive case just like Estonian ma armastan sind, but in kissalla on hiiri (Estonian kassil on hiir) 'cat-ADESSIVE is mouse' "mouse" is technically the subject, isn't it? So the pronouns are just a unique situation entirely (kissalla on minut, kassil on mind in accusative & partitive compared to kissalla on hiiri, kassil on hiir in nominative) and I think not a good example for learning about direct objects.Naava wrote:There are also some people who've been taught that these are just genitive and nominative.
Paljon kiitoksia!Naava wrote:This has been your Daily Finnish Lesson. You're welcome.
Linguaphile wrote:That's what I meant; distinct forms that are different from genitive and nominative.
It's basically like the total object (täissihitis) in Estonian, right? With the partitive case used for partial object (osasihitis)?
. . . in kissalla on hiiri (Estonian kassil on hiir) 'cat-ADESSIVE is mouse' "mouse" is technically the subject, isn't it?
. . . and I think not a good example for learning about direct objects.
Naava wrote:It becomes more problematic when you add a pronoun: *X:llä on minä. The rule says that the verb must agree with the pronoun if it's in nominative, but you can't say X:llä olen minä - that's no longer possession (it actually means "I'm at X's place").
Naava wrote:the only option is to change the nominative to something else. I suppose the accusative case was chosen because partitive would sound like someone had only parts of me (and that would be creepy).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest