I think, things will only get more complicated every time I make a new post about this.
We are entering the realm where the exact meanings and nuances are very subjective and context dependant.
Prantsis wrote:(I don't really understand why "rukis kasvatati vägev" doesn't also sound as a poetic inversion, but for now I'll just take your word for it.)
I think maybe one could think about it like this that "Rukis kasvatati vägev.
" is kind of like "Rukis on vägev.
". But "Kasvatati rukis vägev.
" is kind of like "(See) on vägev rukis.
", but in order to sound fancy, the adjective is shifted behind the noun: "(See) on rukis vägev.
Prantsis wrote:kasvab vägevalt --> Rukki kasv on vägev.
Yes, it's most likely growing fast, very intensly or there are some other great aspects about its growing process.
Prantsis wrote:kasvab vägevaks --> Täiesti kasvanud rukis on vägev. Võib arvata, et kasvu ajal muutub rukis aina vägevamaks. (The vägevus is the result of the growth)
Well, yes... the growing process kind of like represents its life cycle from the time it was planted till the time it will be "ready". And the translative case puts the focus on the outcome of the growing process - any other period of its life cycle is not important (mention-worthy) in this context.
Prantsis wrote:kasvab vägev --> [Siin kasvav] rukis tuleb välja vägev. (The vägevus is not the result of the growth itself, yet it may be the result of the "siinsamas kasvamine" or something like that)
Kind of... maybe. Now it confuses me too.
I think it's like a bit more general way of saying exactly the same thing as the previous sentence, without putting much emphasis on the growing process itself.
Prantsis wrote:The essive sounds wrong even to me, and I guess that's why I brought "kollane". So, to get back to my point, if I understand well:
The sentence "need kasvatasin ma kollas(t)ena" could sound fine in an appropriate context, but it would be weird to say "need kasvatasin ma kollased" instead of it, like in "käsud hoidsid saunad sündsad". Am I right?
Well, now that you change the sentence, the meanings of different cases change as well.
In your previous sentence "Siinne muru kasvab kollasena.
", "muru kasvamine
" is kind of like an eternal never-ending process, referring to the whole time when the grass is alive. So the meaning is more or less 'The grass here tends to be yellow all the time.
On the other hand, in your sentence "Need kasvatasin ma kollastena.
", you are referring to a finished resultative action: most likely you planted something, grew them up and now they are "ready" (ripe, fully grown, ready for harvest).
And in my opinion, the essive case here refers to a feature these things had while they were growing: either they were yellow by themselves (while they were growing) or you yourself turned them yellow for their growing period (maybe because they grow better while being yellow).
Also, use plural essive here, because:
- in my opinion, being yellow is not a general state here, but the features of those individual "objects";
- using singular is ambiguous, because it could also mean that you yourself were yellow while growing them;
"Need kasvatasin ma kollased.
" - either you purposely chose yellow kind of breed to grow or they just turned out to be yellow.