Miks 'võib/saab kasutada' = 'can be used'?

[stordragon]

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?

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?

-----------------------------

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'?

Thank you sooo much for instructions!!

[Loiks]

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?

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'.

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?

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.

-----------------------------

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'?

It is midagi and millegi.

[stordragon]

Thank you Loiks! However, I've still got some questions from what you've said.

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'.

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!

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)'?

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.

Is that really so? I assumed previously that both 'ETsaama/FIsaada' mean 'to be able', while both 'ETvõima/FIvoida' mean 'to be permitted/allowed'...

It is midagi and millegi.

But would you take a look at
http://www.eki.ee/keeleabi/artiklid/rektsioone.html ?
It says 'keelduma ,...mida tegemast'. Why?

[Loiks]

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!

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. 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.

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)'?

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 .

But would you take a look at
http://www.eki.ee/keeleabi/artiklid/rektsioone.html ?
It says 'keelduma ,...mida tegemast'. Why?

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.]

Ei tea, miks eestikeelne sõnakombinatsioon 'saab/võib kasutada' tähendab inglise keeles 'can be used'?

'Ta saab kasutada telefoni ' - He can use the phone (Ta - subject, telefoni - object)

'Telefoni saab kasutada' - One can use the phone; the phone can be used (Telefoni - object; the subject is missing as this is impersonal mode)

[Loiks]

Küsimus on ilmselt ikkagi tekkinud sellest, et 'saab' ei ole ju iseenesest umbisikuline, loogiline oleks tegelikult tõesti ju 'saadakse'. Aga jube raske on öelda, miks nii on.

[Ada H.]

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]

Very sorry for this laaaaaate reply for some personal issues, but thanks a lot for your reply!

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.

Yet is it correct to say, that non-impersonal verb forms such as 'võib' have taken over the roles from which some of us non-Estonians assume to be the actual impersonal verb forms as 'võidakse' to indicate the impersonal sense or passive voice, mostly or only to occur in auxiliary verbs such as 'võima/saama/pidama..'?

i.e. the -b forms 'võib/saab teha, peab tegema' are used for the passive voice 'can(to be permitted/able to) be done, should be done ',

while,

when it comes to ordinary verbs without auxiliaries, one would again come to use -takse forms for passive voice,
i.e. the -takse(/-dakse/-akse,..) forms such as 'tehakse' are used for 'be done' without a 'can/must/should..' in front of it,

isn't it?

e.g.

http://ecoagents.et.eea.europa.eu/resea ... facts_view
'Mõnel pool kasutatakse jõgede ja järvede vett'

vs.

http://ecoagents.en.eea.europa.eu/resea ... facts_view
'In some places water from lakes and rivers is used'

as you would have seen, the -takse form's been used there; and I guess here one would NOT say 'Mõnel pool kasutab jõgede ja järvede vett' to indicate passive voice to mean 'is used', right?

but if you say 'In some places water from lakes and rivers can be used' in Estonian, then I would expect that you use -b form for the passive of 'saama', instead of using -takse form as for the passive of 'kasutama', and say 'Mõnel pool saab kasutada jõgede ja järvede vett', true?

btw, as for French and German, the case might be IMHO a little bit different in that 'on' and 'man' can be used ANYWHERE, be it in combination with an ORDINARY VERB or an AUXILIARY.

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?

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 .

Kuid küsimus on selles, et kõikidest morfoloogilistest analüsaatoritest internetis oleks minu meelest mõistlik eeldada, et vermiformi 'võib' ei saa kasutada umbisikulisena.

plus, I did know what you meant by that 'could'; however, some 'weird' phenomena in Estonian convinced me that 'võidakse teha' can mean 'can be done' as well, in certain circumstances. Momentarily I cannot recall where I saw such usages, nevertheless when I get one I'll put it here.

, et 'saab' ei ole ju iseenesest umbisikuline,

Yes, this was also the very question I meant to put there.

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!

Thank you!

I have just got another question:

in an Estonian comic from: http://www.elections2004.eu.int/system/ ... /06_et.pdf

one guy says 'KUIDAS TA TEADA SAI, ET MA TÄNA TULEMUSED KÄTTE SAIN?…'
AFAIK most Estonian verbs can take partitive(unlike in Finnish, there's no accusative in Estonian right?), genitive, illative, allative, elative, aditive, etc., as an object, yet I've never heard that a nominative noun should serve as an object of a verb,,,

and you see that tulemused is in nominative case; thus, how can it be taken as an object for kätte saama? Is it also possible in Estonian, that nominatives serve as objects of verbs?

Thanks a lot for your instructions!

[stordragon]

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.

Aitäh, aitäh, kuid võiksid mulle seda inglise keelde tõlkida, nii et saaksin sellest paremini aru, mida siin oled kirjutanud? (Ma olen hiinlane ja räägin hiina keelt.)

[stordragon]

Hi all,

I read the posts again and found some of the sentences I wrote above in Estonian very odd, both logically and semantically, thus I've made some modification and expect a little bit improvement. Thank You in advance for the helpful instructions!

[Ada H.]

Is it also possible in Estonian, that nominatives serve as objects of verbs?

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 viidi lasteaeda) or imperative mode (Vii lapsed lasteaeda!)

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.

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.
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]

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]

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!)

Now I see the problem in this issue; So you mean the object "tulemus" in "..ET MA TULEMUSED KÄTTE SAIN" is a so-called total object,

while, an object such as "lehte"(partitive of leht) in "Lehte ei saa kuvada eesti keeles" can be called a partial object?

the question is, how can we non-Finnic speakers(including Ugric speakers) judge or predict which type of object the current verb should take? Has there be a rule that one can follow? I think the distinction between the concepts of so-called "total objects" and "partial objects" is quite confusing for many of us non-Finnic speakers.. and what is more important, which part-of-speech would determine which type of object there should be in a sentence, the verb or the object itself?

e.g. in "telefoni kasutada", is it up to the verb "kasutama" OR to the objective noun "telefon", to determine that the partitive case "telefoni" should be used in combination with "kasutama"?

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.

Is it a "can" or perhaps for some certain modal verbs a "must"

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.

So, "saadakse"&"tohitakse" being prohibited VS. "võidakse" being acceptable, does that apply to all conditions, or merely are they just taken as examples?

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.

Thank You. btw, could you give me some advice in the sentences I wrote above in Estonian? Anything odd or ungrammatical? e.g. shall I use "siin" or "siis", etc. in "siin oled kirjutanud"? Could there be other options to add "kas" before "võiksid" and omit "seda" and "sellest" to make it "Kas võiksid mulle [s]seda [/s]inglise keelde tõlkida, nii et saaksin [s]sellest [/s]paremini aru, mida.."?

(To my knowledge it should be impossible to omit seda, unless the verb "tõlkima" can serve both as something like a transitive and an intransitive verb?)

[stordragon]

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'.

Thank you, and your reply has really broadened my knowledge

The aditive case, though, does exist in Estonian, as it seems. It's just another name i.e. a synonym for "short illative", which is a subtype of illative. The Estonian names for "aditive" and "short illative" are "suunduv" and "lühike sisseütlev", respectively,

and you might find the relevant links under:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... lev%22&lr=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... ditive&lr=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... tonian&lr=

And in contexts like "..inglise keelde tõlkida..", the word form "keelde" is, too, in the aditive case; but I was then not sure about "suhu" that you had used.

[Loiks]

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.]

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]

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 .

That's quite interesting. Thank you. If you have any correspondent information about some Southern-Finnic languages such as Līvõ kēļ(Livonian) regarding the revolution of such markers, could you pls. also provide me some. Thanks!

[stordragon]

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.

[Loiks]

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.

It has something to do with finished/unfinished actions: ma ehitasin endale paati (partitive; 'I was builing a boat for me'); ma ehitasin endale paadi (genitive; 'I built a boat for me'). And: Ehita omale paat! (nominative, Build a boat for yourself!).

The word PARTitive says a lot: it is part of something, so it's never finished.

[Loiks]

So in those three ways we have three cases for accusative in a way.