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

[stordragon]

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.

Hey Loiks, so it seems in Finnic languages the perfectiveness of actions is, UNlike in Slavic and Baltic languages, determined by the NOUNS, rather than by the VERBS, right? Thanks a lot.

(I've just found http://www.did-you-mean.com/Grammatical_aspect.html and http://www.did-you-mean.com/Telicity.html pretty useful in this regard, and I think using declension of nouns, rather than using different so-called verb aspects, is perhaps the unique way to distinguish between different grammatical aspects in Finnic languages.)

And I'll wait till someone else would help me with the rest of questions I raised to Ada.H.

[stordragon]

Hi Loiks, lisaks soovin ka teada kas eesti keeles on sellised verbid, milledega on võimalik ainult üht osastavast ja nimetavast käändest kasutada? nt. Google'ist olen 5 tulemused leidnud otsingule "tulemused kätte saab" kuid 0 tulemusi otsingule "tulemusi kätte saab"...

Kas see tähendab, et osatavat käänet siis ei saa kasutada?

[Ada H.]

3.sg.pres.ind instead of impersonal

Võidakse, saadakse, tohitakse are grammatically possible but rare. Saadakse is far more common with the meaning "is got, is received" and peetakse is only possible with the meaning "is kept". As for võib and tohib, there seems to be a stylistic nuance but it is so subtle that I am not able to explain it efficiently. I will just bring some more examples, maybe you will be able to derive the rule yourself

Eksamil tohib sõnaraamatut kasutada.
Vabadus tähendab, et tohitakse jääda iseendaks.
Sinna võib tasuta kaasa võtta 20 kilo pagasit.
Piiril võidakse teie dokumente kontrollida.
Tartusse saab sõita bussiga.
Ehitusel saadakse varsti tööd alustada.

some advice in the sentences I wrote above in Estonian

Aitäh, aitäh, kuid võiksid sa selle mulle [s]seda[/s] inglise keelde tõlkida, (nii) et ma paremini aru saaksin, mida sa siin oled kirjutanud?

[stordragon]

3.sg.pres.ind instead of impersonal

Võidakse, saadakse, tohitakse are grammatically possible but rare. Saadakse is far more common with the meaning "is got, is received" and peetakse is only possible with the meaning "is kept". As for võib and tohib, there seems to be a stylistic nuance but it is so subtle that I am not able to explain it efficiently. I will just bring some more examples, maybe you will be able to derive the rule yourself

Eksamil tohib sõnaraamatut kasutada.
Vabadus tähendab, et tohitakse jääda iseendaks.
Sinna võib tasuta kaasa võtta 20 kilo pagasit.
Piiril võidakse teie dokumente kontrollida.
Tartusse saab sõita bussiga.
Ehitusel saadakse varsti tööd alustada.

Sounds somewhat anecdotal, thank You.

Will you translate this into English?
Piiril võidakse teie dokumente kontrollida.

there seems to be a stylistic nuance but it is so subtle

As regards the difference between 'võib' and 'tohib', or that between 'võib/tohib' and 'võidakse/tohitakse'?

some advice in the sentences I wrote above in Estonian

Aitäh, aitäh, kuid võiksid sa selle mulle [s]seda[/s] inglise keelde tõlkida, (nii) et ma paremini aru saaksin, mida sa siin oled kirjutanud?

The pronouns that you highlighted with red color are all merely optional: in other words, it's grammatically OK that ma, sa be either present or omitted, isn't it?

On the other hand I don't understand why you've "commented out" the pronoun seda, for you see, my best intuition tells me the verb "tõlkima" should be semantically transitive and thus cannot have no object, just as in English one may say "I translate it." but normatively it's not possible to say "I translate." without an object after "translate" coz 'to translate' is a transitive verb!

But you've replaced "seda" by "selle", then what does this "selle" refer to? I asked Mr. Google by using three strings and found all the options open for these usages.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... %B4%A2&lr=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... %B4%A2&lr=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... ida%22&lr=

As for the difference between "see * keelde tõlkida" and "seda * keelde tõlkida", I've got some clue in the light of your former tips; however, what is "selle * keelde tõlkida"? e.g.How would you explain the role of "selle"?

and, regarding sentence structures like "et ma aru saaksin", seeing you've swapped my original positions of "aru" and "saaksin" (thanks for this important hint), I found on the google both sequences are possible.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... %B4%A2&lr=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&n ... aru%22&lr=

What's the difference between the two? my intuition is that "et ma aru saaksin" is only used when the et-clause is intended to indicate the purpose, isn't it?

Thank You for further instructions on these!

[stordragon]

And furthermore another question regarding the passive voice in Estonian:

What's the difference between using impersonal -takse forms and using -tud forms?

e.g. if I say,
Raamat on kirjutatud eesti keeles.
Raamat kirjutatakse eesti keeles.
(or "Raamatut kirjutatakse eesti keeles." also possible?)

Do they serve respectively as resultant state passive(as e.g.German/Dutch sein/zijn-passive, etc.) and action passive(as e.g.German/Dutch werden/worden-passive, etc.) or do they have further distinctions in usage?

[Ada H.]

Piiril võidakse teie dokumente kontrollida. = It is possible that your documents will be checked on the border.

Regarding the difference between 'võib' and 'tohib': tohtima refers more to the absence of outside force, võima to inner ability or to abstract possibility.
As for võib/võidakse and tohib/tohitakse, I may have been been misleading you. I just found a paragraph in a grammar book where it says that the verb is in 3.sg in the sentences where 1)the subject is missing and is not even imaginable:
Hämardub. It's getting dark.
Selle töö teeb valmis paari tunniga. This work can be completed in a couple of hours.
Meil tuleb varsti minema hakata. We have to be going soon.
or 2) is the statement is true for any imaginable actor (general person):
Nooruses omandab kõike kergesti. One learns quickly when one is young.

Well, basically you need someone more competent than me...

Aitäh, aitäh, kuid võiksid sa selle mulle [s]seda[/s] inglise keelde tõlkida, (nii) et ma paremini aru saaksin, mida sa siin oled kirjutanud?

Grammatically the sentence will be understandable without the pronouns but I think that a native speaker in a normal situation would use the pronouns. Somehow the rhythm of speech is better this way. Omission could be a stylistic tool.

selle is a total object (genitive case) because the action of translation will be completed - the whole of the sentence will be fully translated.

[Loiks]

And furthermore another question regarding the passive voice in Estonian:

What's the difference between using impersonal -takse forms and using -tud forms?

e.g. if I say,
Raamat on kirjutatud eesti keeles.
Raamat kirjutatakse eesti keeles.
(or "Raamatut kirjutatakse eesti keeles." also possible?)

Do they serve respectively as resultant state passive(as e.g.German/Dutch sein/zijn-passive, etc.) and action passive(as e.g.German/Dutch werden/worden-passive, etc.) or do they have further distinctions in usage?

Raamat on kirjutatud eesti keeles - The book has been written in Estonian (the book is finished)
Raamatut on kirjutatud eesti keeles - The book has been being written (someone has written something sometimes, but we don't know if it is finished)
Raamat kirjutatakse eesti keeles - The book is written (or even better: will be written) in Estonian. (the book is not finished yet, we don't actually even know if it is started, but it will certainly be finished)
Raamatut kirjutatakse eesti keeles - The book is being written (somebody is writing now, but we don't know whether it will be finished).

This on kirjutatud can also be called this resultant state passive, I guess; like on tehtud ...-st ('is made of smth')

[eurooplane]

Tere!

I just found a paragraph in a grammar book where it says that the verb is in 3.sg in the sentences where 1)the subject is missing and is not even imaginable:
Hämardub. It's getting dark.
Selle töö teeb valmis paari tunniga. This work can be completed in a couple of hours.
Meil tuleb varsti minema hakata. We have to be going soon.

I don't understand why "Meil tuleb"?
Concerning the second sentence, it's ok: we don't know the subject, we don't know who do the work.
But for "We have to be going soon", we know who is going? it's us?

[Loiks]

Welcome back, Eurooplane, long time no see!

The question here is that 'meil' is in adessive case. Kind of 'on us'. So it isn't subject in this sentence. It is also possible to say 'Me peame', then 'me' is subject and the verb should be in -ma mode.

[eurooplane]

Welcome back, Eurooplane, long time no see!

Tõesti, on kaua, aga ma olen rõõmus, et eesti sektsioon on aktiivne, ja on enam sünnipäraste (plural partitive ?) siin.
Indeed, it’s a long time, but I’m glad to see the section is active, and there are more natives here.

The question here is that 'meil' is in adessive case. Kind of 'on us'. So it isn't subject in this sentence. It is also possible to say 'Me peame', then 'me' is subject and the verb should be in -ma mode.

Ma saan aru paremini praegu.
And what do you say more, generally?
« Me peame varsti minema hakkama » or « Meil tuleb varsti minema hakata »

[Loiks]

Welcome back, Eurooplane, long time no see!

Tõesti, on kaua aega möödunud, aga ma olen rõõmus, et eesti sektsioon on aktiivne, ja on rohkem sünnipäraseid eestlasi siin.
Indeed, it’s a long time, but I’m glad to see the section is active, and there are more natives here.

The question here is that 'mei[b]l' is in adessive case. Kind of 'on us'. So it isn't subject in this sentence. It is also possible to say 'Me peame', then 'me' is subject and the verb should be in -ma mode.

Ma saan aru paremini praegu.
And what do you say more, generally?
« Me peame varsti minema hakkama » or « Meil tuleb varsti minema hakata »

Both are very correct actually !

[Loiks]

In spoken language you'd usually say: me peame minema hakkama; or just lähme (minema/ära).

[aaakknu]

Raamat on kirjutatud eesti keeles - The book has been written in Estonian (the book is finished)
Raamatut on kirjutatud eesti keeles - The book has been being written (someone has written something sometimes, but we don't know if it is finished)
Raamat kirjutatakse eesti keeles - The book is written (or even better: will be written) in Estonian. (the book is not finished yet, we don't actually even know if it is started, but it will certainly be finished)
Raamatut kirjutatakse eesti keeles - The book is being written (somebody is writing now, but we don't know whether it will be finished).

This on kirjutatud can also be called this resultant state passive, I guess; like on tehtud ...-st ('is made of smth')

See on nii raske!