Moderator:aaakknu
france-eesti wrote:Tere! Aitäh! This is wonderful for me, as I wish to understand every case of the Estonian language and compare with Hungarian!
I think you could call it accusative in Estonian too. At least it acts and behaves (almost) the same way as Finnish accusative - looking like genitive in some and nominative in other situations, according to a very specific set of rules. Even in your example, the first maja "is" genitive, the second "is" nominative.Linguaphile wrote:3. (Accusative in Finnish. Genitive in Estonian?) I'll paint the house. Help me paint the house! = Ma värvin maja. Aidake mind maja värvida! (Should there be an "ära" here? Is "Aidake mul maja värvida" the same?)
Indeed, any of these are actually not the examples of the given cases in Estonian. For outer locative cases in case of house, you could use giving/adding something (some feature or part) to a house, house having something (some feature or part) and taking(removing) something (some feature or part) away from a house, for example.Linguaphile wrote:8. (Adessive) See you at the house! = Näeme majas! (Better example for adessive: Näeme seal! [See you there! We'll see each other there!])
9. (Ablative in Finnish, but elative in Estonian) I walked from [one] house to another. = Ma kõndisin ühest majast teisesse. (Better example for allative: Ma kõndisin ühelt korruselt teisele [I walked from one floor to another]?)
10. (Allative in Finnish) When will you be arriving to [/at] the house? = Millal jõuate maja juurde? (Better example for allative: Paneme majale uued aknad [We're putting new windows on the house].)
Yes, hütt sounds okay. Yes, kasutama is the right verb. And yes, essive is the right case here.Linguaphile wrote:11. (Essive) Are you using this shack as a house? = Kas te kasutate seda hütti majana? (Is hütt the right translation? Is kasutama the right verb in this context? Is essive even right or should it be something with nagu?)
Again, täissihitis. "Muudan seda majaks." would be I am turning it into a house.Linguaphile wrote:12. (Translative) I'll turn it into a house. = Muudan selle majaks.
I think better would be "Nad levitavad oma sõnumit oma/enda ehitatud majade kaudu."Linguaphile wrote:13. (Instructive - in Finnish. Genitive in Estonian if using järgi here is a reasonable translation. Although to be honest I'm a bit stumped with this one.) They passed on their message with(using) the houses they built. = (Nad) Levitavad oma sõnumit majade kaudu, mille nad (ise) ehitasid.
This is tricky. You can make many sentences with different meanings by fiddling with the order of words and cases used. For example:Linguaphile wrote:15. (Comitative) He appears to be wealthy, with the numerous houses he has. = Ta tundub olevat rikas nende paljude majadega, mille tal on.
ainurakne wrote:I would indeed choose some other word where all the cases are clearly distinguishable from each other. And which hopefully also supports obscure cases like instructive and -tsi (I can't remember what it's called) and maybe some others).
ainurakne wrote:I think you could call it accusative in Estonian too.
Linguaphile wrote:9. (Ablative in Finnish, but elative in Estonian) I walked from [one] house to another. = Ma kõndisin ühest majast teisesse. (Better example for allative: Ma kõndisin ühelt korruselt teisele [I walked from one floor to another]?)
ainurakne wrote:This is tricky. You can make many sentences with different meanings by fiddling with the order of words and cases used.
Would this make sense:ainurakne wrote:"Ma värvin aia ära." - I'll paint a/the fence.
It's common to use "otsustades" to express this idea:Naava wrote:ainurakne wrote:This is tricky. You can make many sentences with different meanings by fiddling with the order of words and cases used.
If it helps, the original one means that he has many houses, therefore he must be rich.
Ça se poursuit !france-eesti wrote:Comment va ton apprentissage de l'estonien ? ça se poursuit?
And ajju (into the brain). Or actually pretty much any (C)VCV word that can become (C)VCCV in illative case (although, the short illative form is not used for all the words that can possibly have it).Linguaphile wrote:("irregular" isn't quite the right word here, since it does follow a rule, but it's not the rule most words follow... let's just say that knowing that majja is the illative form of maja might not really help you form the illative of any other word, except maybe ojja [into the creek] and halba tujju [into a bad mood]....)
Yes!Naava wrote:Prolative?
Oh, I meant that one could call this construct, that occurs in Estonian language, "accusative case" when talking about it in English. It's not called akusatiiv in Estonian.Naava wrote:Is it common to call it accusative?
I would say:Naava wrote:You could use elative in Finnish, but it has a different meaning:
- kävelin talolta talolle / talolta toiselle = sounds like you were knocking at their doors (eg. selling stuff)
- kävelin talosta taloon = sounds like you went inside each house (visiting them)
How would you say these in Estonian?
If you contrast them like this, then indeed it feels as if the first one is more like the fence and the second one a fence. I wouldn't say this is something common in spoken language, though.Prantsis wrote:Would this make sense:
Ma värvin aia ära. - I'll paint the fence.
Ma värvin ära aia. - I'll paint a fence.
Yes, I think this a really good example.Prantsis wrote:It's common to use "otsustades" to express this idea:Naava wrote:ainurakne wrote:This is tricky. You can make many sentences with different meanings by fiddling with the order of words and cases used.
If it helps, the original one means that he has many houses, therefore he must be rich.
"Otsustades nende paljude majade järele/järgi, mis tal on, tundub ta olevat rikas."
ainurakne wrote:And ajju (into the brain). Or actually pretty much any (C)VCV word that can become (C)VCCV in illative case (although, the short illative form is not used for all the words that can possibly have it).Linguaphile wrote:("irregular" isn't quite the right word here, since it does follow a rule, but it's not the rule most words follow... let's just say that knowing that majja is the illative form of maja might not really help you form the illative of any other word, except maybe ojja [into the creek] and halba tujju [into a bad mood]....)Yes!Naava wrote:Prolative?Oh, I meant that one could call this construct, that occurs in Estonian language, "accusative case" when talking about it in English. It's not called akusatiiv in Estonian.Naava wrote:Is it common to call it accusative?I would say:Naava wrote:You could use elative in Finnish, but it has a different meaning:
- kävelin talolta talolle / talolta toiselle = sounds like you were knocking at their doors (eg. selling stuff)
- kävelin talosta taloon = sounds like you went inside each house (visiting them)
How would you say these in Estonian?
- käisin ukselt uksele
- käisin majast majjaIf you contrast them like this, then indeed it feels as if the first one is more like the fence and the second one a fence. I wouldn't say this is something common in spoken language, though.Prantsis wrote:Would this make sense:
Ma värvin aia ära. - I'll paint the fence.
Ma värvin ära aia. - I'll paint a fence.
Whether it's a specific fence or just some random fence is usually obvious from the context (or to the people having the conversation), or it doesn't matter at all. If it's really needed to point out that it's some random fence (most likely a one that the speaker itself doesn't know about yet), then it could be referred to as üks aed. And if it needs explanation which fence is it, then one must specify which is it or whom does it belong to.Yes, I think this a really good example.Prantsis wrote:It's common to use "otsustades" to express this idea:Naava wrote:ainurakne wrote:This is tricky. You can make many sentences with different meanings by fiddling with the order of words and cases used.
If it helps, the original one means that he has many houses, therefore he must be rich.
"Otsustades nende paljude majade järele/järgi, mis tal on, tundub ta olevat rikas."
Also possible (with comitative):
"Kõikide oma majadega tundub ta (päris/üpris) rikas olevat."
"Oma paljude majadega tundub ta (päris/üpris) rikas olevat."
---
I couldn't think of a better word for examples than laud = a table, a wooden board
- Nominative: Laud on köögis. - The table is in the kitchen
- Genitive: Laua üks jalg on lühem kui teised. - Table's one leg is shorter than the others
- Partitive: Katan lauda. - I am setting the table; Katsin lauda. - I was setting the table
- Accusative: Katan laua. - I will set the table; Katsin laua. - I set(past) the table; Kata laud! - Set the table!; Õhtusöögiks tuleb katta laud. - The table must be set for the dinner
- Illative: Tagusin naela lauda(/lauasse) - I hammered a nail into the board/table; Also possible: Tagusin naela laua sisse.
Illative is also used for, for example: Istusime lauda. - We sat down to the table- Inessive: Lauas on nael. - There is a nail in the board/table; Also possible: Laua sees on nael.
Inessive is also used for, for example: Istume lauas. - We are sitting at the table- Elative: Kangutasin lauast naela (välja). - I pried a nail out from the board/table; Also possible: Kangutasin laua seest naela (välja).
- Allative: Panin toidu lauale. - I put the food onto the table; Also possible: Panin toidu laua peale. (although in this context it emphasizes that it's really the top of the table where I put the food at)
Allative is also used when giving/adding something to someone/something, for example: Kruvisin lauale jala alla/külge. - I screwed a leg onto the table, I attached a leg to the table- Adessive: Toit on laual. - The food is on the table; Also possible: Toit on laua peal. (although in this context it emphasizes that it's really the top of the table where the food is)
Adessive is also used when someone/something has something, for example: Laual on neli jalga (all). - The table has four legs- Ablative: Koristasin toidu laualt. - I took off the food from on the table (after eating); Also possible: Koristasin toidu laua pealt (ära).
Ablative is also used when taking something away from someone/something, for example: Eemaldasin laualt jala. - I removed a leg from the table- Translative: Muutsin selle kännu lauaks. - I turned this stump into a table
- Terminative: Ma ei ulatu lauani. - I can't reach to the table; Kõndisin lauani ja tagasi. - I walked up to the table and back
- Essiva: Seda kändu kasutatakse lauana. - This stump is used as a table
- Abessive: (Ilma) Lauata on köögis kõle. - It's bleak/empty in the kitchen without (having) a table
Could be also used kind of like an adjective: (Ilma) Lauata köök. - A kitchen without a table
Could also mean the lack of having a "tool": Lasin (ilma) (lume)lauata mäest alla. - I slid down the hill without (having) a snowboard- Comitative: usually used when doing something (together) with someone/something, so I can't think of a good example here.
Could be also used kind of like an adjective: Lauaga köök. - A kitchen with a table
Is also used when using something as a "tool": Lasin (lume)lauaga mäest alla. - I slid down the hill with a snowboard; Äigasin talle lauaga. - I hit(past) him with a board
ainurakne wrote:If you contrast them like this, then indeed it feels as if the first one is more like the fence and the second one a fence. I wouldn't say this is something common in spoken language, though.Prantsis wrote:Would this make sense:
Ma värvin aia ära. - I'll paint the fence.
Ma värvin ära aia. - I'll paint a fence.
Indeed, I was wondering what other rule that I know of, this new a - the rule contradicts. But unfortunately I couldn't recall.Prantsis wrote:Now I realize my question was a bit stupid. On the page I linked to they say known/unknown, and I jumped to definite/indefinite (maybe because of their example?) But that's not the same thing.
In our case, I guess you could use the second word order if what you'll paint is the main new (=unknown) information in the sentence, so, likely, if the fact that you'll paint something is already known: "I'll paint a/the fence, not (the) shutters."
ainurakne wrote:Indeed, it should be something like:
Ma värvin aia ära. - I will paint a/the fence.
Ma värvin ära aia. - It is fence that I will paint.
There's also Aia värvin ära., but I'm having hard time figuring out the exact meaning (in English) of this. I guess, it's similar to the first one? But the topic is the fence not the action of painting it?
Hmm, now that I started thinking about it, Aia värvin ära. could also be the answer for the question Mille sa ära värvid? (what will you paint) - so it actually seems to be more like the second meaning (it is fence that I will paint). On the other hand Mis sa täna teed? - Aia värvin ära. is also okay (and seems to be rather the first meaning - I will paint the fence).ainurakne wrote:There's also Aia värvin ära., but I'm having hard time figuring out the exact meaning (in English) of this. I guess, it's similar to the first one? But the topic is the fence not the action of painting it?
I would rather say:Prantsis wrote:Yes, something like:
What will you do? -> Ma värvin aia ära.
What will you paint? -> Ma värvin ära aia.
What will you do about the fence? -> Aia värvin ära.
ainurakne wrote:So maybe this one is not at all about tuntud or tundmatu, but only about whether (a/the) fence is the topic / focal point of the conversation or not.
ainurakne wrote:I would rather say:Prantsis wrote:Yes, something like:
What will you do? -> Ma värvin aia ära.
What will you paint? -> Ma värvin ära aia.
What will you do about the fence? -> Aia värvin ära.
What will you do? -> Ma värvin aia ära. but Aia värvin ära. is also okay (EDIT: or actually also Ma värvin ära aia.)
What will you paint? -> Aia värvin ära. or simply Aia.
What will you do about the fence? -> Ära värvin. (EDIT: or (Ma) värvin ta ära.)
What will you paint? -> Aia värvin ära. or simply Aia.
Prantsis wrote:What will you do about the fence? -> Aia värvin ära.
Ainurakne wrote:What will you do about the fence? -> Ära värvin. (EDIT: or (Ma) värvin ta ära.)
Prantsis wrote:For English, I'm not õige inimene. I guess I'd just say "the fence, I'll paint it".
Naava wrote:How about "it's the fence I'm painting / I'll paint"?
ainurakne wrote:Eh, I guess it's easier to learn to use all this correctly (through experience), than actually trying to figure out what it really means.
Prantsis wrote:I think there are two different "rules" here that can affect the word order, in possibly contradictory ways:
- the comment (tundmatu) about the topic (tuntud) is put in last position
- something you want to emphasize can be put in first position
Linguaphile wrote:Putting the topic first as a form of emphasis is a type of construction that is used often in speech but not often written that way in English.
Prantsis wrote:Linguaphile wrote:Putting the topic first as a form of emphasis is a type of construction that is used often in speech but not often written that way in English.
I've been reading Tammsaare lately, and sometimes he does exactly that: putting the topic first, and in nominative case. I should have written down examples, I was able to find back only this one:
Ainult Krõõt, Vargamäe noor perenaine, temal ei olnud täna unistusi oma mehe kõrval.
I'm pretty sure I've never seen this type of construction in any other book so far. Do you know if it ever occurs in speech?
Linguaphile wrote:To me it sounds very literary,
Prantsis wrote:Here's a whole article (in French) about this construction in spoken Estonian. They call it initial detachment / algteemat sisaldav lahktarind, and also eelteema "preposed theme".
In the introduction, they confirm my impression that in written language this type of construction isn't as common in Estonian as it is in French.
Return to “Estonian (Eesti keel)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests