Moderator: aaakknu
stordragon wrote:Ei tea, miks eestikeelne sõnakombinatsioon 'saab/võib kasutada' tähendab inglise keeles 'can be used'?
Hi guys,
I'm a newcomer in Estonian and currently I've encountered a confusing problem as follows:
when I compared some Estonian versions of User Manuals of Nokia products against the English versions, I found terms such as 'saab/võib kasutada' often corresponded to 'can be used', or the alike.
e.g.
in Page 26 of
nds1.nokia.com/phones/files/guides/Nokia_7710_UG_et.pdf
'Valjuhääldit saab kasutada kõne ajal',
VS.
in Page 26 of
nds1.nokia.com/phones/files/guides/Nokia_7710_UG_en.pdf
'The loudspeaker can be used during a call'
the former of which seemed to me in the active voice('saab/võib kasutada' -> 'can use(3rd.sg)'), whereas the latter in the passive voice('can be used'). So I wonder how this comes about?
Do you say 'it can use' and 'it can be used' exactly the same way?
I once guessed that 'saab/võib' in that context should've been the impersonal forms(3rd.pres.ind.) of 'saama/võima' indicating 'one can use', which is said one of the most common practices for the alternative of the English passive voice in Estonian; However, from some web M-analyzers(Morfoloogilised analüsaatorid:)) it turns out the impersonal forms(3rd.pres.ind.) of 'saama/võima' should be 'saadakse/võidakse', though, So why?
stordragon wrote: Plus AFAIK a Finn would probably use 'saadaan/voidaan käyttää' to express the passive voice in this case, where the auxiliary verb 'saada/voida' themselves are in the passive form 'saadaan/voidaan'; however, the Estonian 'saab/võib' in contrast are not passive at all but active and the rule can not be applied, plus the -da infinitive 'kasutada' seems not passive either, so why?
stordragon wrote: btw I would like to know, how one would say 'something' in a Estonian dictionary,
e.g.which terms of 'mille' and 'millegi' one should choose,,,
if he or she plans to work on a small ET-EN dictionary with the phrasal entry 'to refuse to do something' in Estonian, should it be 'keelduma mille tegemisest/keelduma mida tegemast' or 'keelduma millegi tegemisest/keelduma midagi tegemast'?
Loiks wrote:I don't have any answer exactly why it is so. Tema võib kasutada = he/she can use, võib kasutada = can be used in general. Saadakse kasutada sounds very weird to my ear and I'd never use this form; võidakse kasutada would be like 'could be used'.
Loiks wrote:võidakse kasutada would be like 'could be used'.
Loiks wrote:I have always used these constructions in Finnish exactly as in Estonian. Siin ei tohi suitsetada / Täällä ei saa polttaa = it is not allowed to smoke here. It's never 'ei tohita suitsetada / ei saadaan polttaa'. Mind also that ET saama = to be able, FI saada = to be allowed.
Loiks wrote:It is midagi and millegi.
stordragon wrote:So this means verb forms like 'saab/võib' play the roles of impersonal-pronouns here, right? Otherwise it would be quite tough to explain why a verb in form of 3rd.sg.pres.ind + an active da-infinitive can bring about a passive sense!
stordragon wrote:Loiks wrote:võidakse kasutada would be like 'could be used'.
Sorry I did not follow you there. 'võidakse' is the present indicative of 'võima', thus how can it mean 'could (be)' instead of 'can (be)'?
stordragon wrote:But would you take a look at
http://www.eki.ee/keeleabi/artiklid/rektsioone.html ?
It says 'keelduma ,...mida tegemast'. Why?
stordragon wrote:Ei tea, miks eestikeelne sõnakombinatsioon 'saab/võib kasutada' tähendab inglise keeles 'can be used'?
Loiks wrote:Well, yes I guess. You can immagine an impersonal pronoun there, something like man in German or on in French, but it's silent then in Estonian.
Loiks wrote:There are also such constructions: Siin on nii pime, et ei näe sõrmegi suhu pista. (It is so dark here that one doesn't even see to put a finger in one's mouth.) Both verbs in red are 3rd. sg. pres. ind.
Loiks wrote:Maybe it is hard to understand and even harder for me to explain. If you say võidakse teha it means to me that 'it could be done in certain circumstances, it might be done' while võib teha
is 'can be done'. In English this 'could' is meant to indicate that it's conditional not that it's in the past tense (in past: võis teha 'could (here: to indicate the tense) be done and võidi teha 'could have been done, might have been done'. But there is always a big possibility that I make mistakes in English tenses.
Loiks wrote:, et 'saab' ei ole ju iseenesest umbisikuline,
Loiks wrote:The author has given the questions to indicate the cases that have to be used with certain words. It wouldn't be practical to add the -ki/-gi every time here. In normal language you have to ask: kas see on adekvaatne millegagi? Kas sa oled millegi peale ahne?
If anything remains unclear feel free to ask further questions!
Ada H. wrote:Jah, ma ei süvenenud piisavalt asjasse. Ilmselt tulebki lihtsalt nentida, et aluseta passiivilauses asendab (mõnede?) modaalverbide puhul umbisikulist tegumoodi isikulise tegumoe kindla kõneviisi ainsuse 3. pöördes (koos da- või ma-tegevusnimega) vms.
Telefoni saab kasutada (vrd telefoni saadakse kasutada - kohmakas ja ebaloomulik)
Siia tohib parkida (siia tohitakse parkida - ebaloomulik)
Randa võib jalutada. (randa võidakse jalutada - erinev tähendusnüanss; esimesel juhul võib=tohib, teisel juhul võib=on võimalik)
Kingid tuleb pakkida.
Neile peab helistama.
stordragon wrote: Is it also possible in Estonian, that nominatives serve as objects of verbs?
stordragon wrote:Loiks wrote:There are also such constructions: Siin on nii pime, et ei näe sõrmegi suhu pista. (It is so dark here that one doesn't even see to put a finger in one's mouth.) Both verbs in red are 3rd. sg. pres. ind.
I see, THANK YOU. btw, suhu serves as the aditive of suu right?
Ada H. wrote:Total object in plural is always in the nominative case (Viisin lapsed lasteaeda)
Total object in singular is in the nominative case if the verb is in impersonal voice (Lapsed(or "Laps"?) viidi lasteaeda) or imperative mode (Vii lapsed lasteaeda!)
Ada H. wrote:As for the previous topic, I was saying just the same as you: in passive sentences without a subjet, modal verbs can appear in 3.sg.pres.ind instead of impersonal.
Ada H. wrote:Telefoni saab kasutada - it is possible to use the telephone. Telefoni saadakse kasutada - sounds kind of wrong or unnatural. Siia tohib parkida - parking is allowed here. Siia tohitakse parkida - also sounds wrong.
Randa võib jalutada - one can walk to the beach, it is allowed or possible. Randa võidakse jalutada - it is possible that someome might actually walk to the beach. For me personally, in this last sentence there is just a hint that it is possible but actually inadvisable or unwanted.
Ada H. wrote:Kingid tuleb pakkida - the gifts have to be wrapped
Neile peab helistama - it is necessary to call them.
Actually it works for the past too: siia tohtis parkida, sinna võis helistada etc.
Loiks wrote:stordragon wrote:Loiks wrote:There are also such constructions: Siin on nii pime, et ei näe sõrmegi suhu pista. (It is so dark here that one doesn't even see to put a finger in one's mouth.) Both verbs in red are 3rd. sg. pres. ind.
I see, THANK YOU. btw, suhu serves as the aditive of suu right?
Now, what is aditive? I've never heard of such a case. It's illative of suu 'into the mouth'. There is a group of nouns that have this -h- as the illative marker: pea - pähe, maa - maha, öö - öhe, suu - suhu etc. It is more common in Finnish, in Estonian the usual -sse ending is taking its place, those old forms remain though in expressions: ma panin mütsi pähe - 'I put the hat on'; ma kukkusin maha - 'I felt down'; ma kadusin öhe - 'I disappeared into the night' etc.
But there are expressions like mis puutub suusse - 'what concerns the mouth' - in here you can only use the -sse illative, the short one 'suhu' can only be used as 'into the mouth'.
stordragon wrote: the question is, how can we non-Finnic speakers(including Ugric speakers) judge or predict which type of object the current verb should take?
Loiks wrote:Good, some new information about my native to me too. I know there has been some arguing about whether this aditive is a separate case or not. But then we speak about those nouns that have this gemination of consonant (maja - majja). Then again, historically this -h- has been there as the very illative marker, see: Karelian: talohon, Finnish: taloon, Estonian: tallu. The gemination appears also in Finnish eastern dialects and Ingrian AFAIK. Well, just some backround information
.
Ada H. wrote:stordragon wrote: the question is, how can we non-Finnic speakers(including Ugric speakers) judge or predict which type of object the current verb should take?
I am referring to "Eesti kirjakeele käsiraamat" (http://www.eki.ee/books/ekkr/):
Partial object (in partitive case)
- The action is ongoing and/or the object denotes an indefinite amount (ma ehitan endale paati, ta sõi suppi)
- In negative sentences (ma ei ostnud leiba)
- With partitive verbs that allow onyl total object (meenutama, armastama, kallistama, liigutama, puudutama, huvitama, aimama)
Total object (in nominative or genitive case)
- The action is completed or perfective; the object denotes a whole thing or a definite amount (ma ostsin endale paadi, ta sõi supi ära)
- In negative sentences using the construction mitte... vaid... (ma ei ostnud mitte paadi vaid suvila)
If the result of the action is temporary, both forms of objects are possible (anna mulle pliiats/anna mulle pliiatsit).
stordragon wrote:Ada H. wrote:stordragon wrote: the question is, how can we non-Finnic speakers(including Ugric speakers) judge or predict which type of object the current verb should take?
I am referring to "Eesti kirjakeele käsiraamat" (http://www.eki.ee/books/ekkr/):
Partial object (in partitive case)
- The action is ongoing and/or the object denotes an indefinite amount (ma ehitan endale paati, ta sõi suppi)
- In negative sentences (ma ei ostnud leiba)
- With partitive verbs that allow onyl total object (meenutama, armastama, kallistama, liigutama, puudutama, huvitama, aimama)
Total object (in nominative or genitive case)
- The action is completed or perfective; the object denotes a whole thing or a definite amount (ma ostsin endale paadi, ta sõi supi ära)
- In negative sentences using the construction mitte... vaid... (ma ei ostnud mitte paadi vaid suvila)
If the result of the action is temporary, both forms of objects are possible (anna mulle pliiats/anna mulle pliiatsit).
Thank you!
That's quite useful information.
But I wonder if you would be so kind to answer the rest of my questions when you have time, if you don't consider them senseless.![]()
Return to “Estonian (Eesti keel)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest