Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

User avatar
Naava
Posts: 335
Joined: 2012-01-17, 20:24
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Naava » 2016-12-15, 16:56

Linguaphile wrote:Congratulations, you speak Estonian! :D

Haha that's how it feels like sometimes. :lol: It's not even the first time I find similarities between Estonian and my dialect, but I guess I'll always be shocked by it.

I'm from South-Ostrobothnia, which makes it even more strange. It'd be nice to know if these words and stuff like that are just random things that have developed independently in two different places, or if the words have come from Estonia via South West dialects, or if they're from protolanguage. Who knows.

Thanks for the link of dialectal forms!

ainurakne wrote:I use it mostly as "firstly", when referring to things in order (esiteks, teiseks, kolmandaks, ...). So, the second point from EKSS: usage in place of "esimeseks".

I have also heard it being used for "before" and "earlier", together with its variation "esteks", which I have also heard quite a lot. So, I guess, it's quite similar to your dialect.

I'm not sure exactly, but could it be (at least in Estonian) something like "esiti" mutated to "esite" + translative.

Also, a fun fact: the genitive form of "esi" is "ee" :mrgreen:


Hmm okay, nice to know! I would use ensimmääseks, toiseks, kolomanneks etc if listing order and este(ks) - sitte for 'before - then'. I tried to google and most people seem to agree with me, but I did find one hit where it had been used as "the first one of all".

esiti - maybe? Sounds good to me.

A bit offtopic, but do you know how old a suffix that -ti is? And why is it öösiti and not ööti? It looks a lot like Finnish -sin and means the same, and otherwise it's just like in Finnish as far as I know (eg. õhtu+ti = ehtoo+sin) but that öö isn't the same. :hmm:

I've seen that film and if I remember correctly, there was more Proto-Finnic there. Can't say how correct it was though, I didn't pay much attention back then because I didn't know much of P-F anyway. :(
native: (fi)
speaks more or less fluently: (en)
can talk about weird topics in: (sv)
learning process started: (ru) & (et)

Linguaphile
Posts: 436
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2016-12-15, 17:29

ainurakne wrote:By the way, has anyone seen that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J388u1mJVyM

I wonder if there is more Proto-Finnic (/pre Proto-Finnic) in the whole movie. And how correct is it.

Wow, that's pretty cool! Yes, it would be interesting to know more about it. Thanks for the youtube link!
Learning is a treasure that follows its owner everywhere. El aprendizaje es un tesoro que sigue a su dueño por todas partes. Õpitu on aare, mis saadab oma omanikku kõikjal. Lernen ist ein Schatz, der seinem Besitzer überallhin folgt. L'apprentissage est un trésor qui suit son propriétaire partout. Txoj kev kawm yog cov khoom muaj nqis, uas raws nws tus tswv qhov txhia chaw. Op'minõ om aarõq, miä saat uma umanikku egäl puul.

User avatar
ainurakne
Posts: 605
Joined: 2012-02-16, 22:09
Gender: male
Country: EE Estonia (Eesti)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ainurakne » 2016-12-15, 22:06

In Estonian, there is also rare (or dialectal) öösi (and its variation ööse). The most common is öösel (which I'm not sure whether it's ööse + adessive -l or instead a contraction of ööse a'al (/ajal) or öisel a'al). These refer to taking place or happening at the time of night or during night, as opposed to during day time, and are different from ööl (at/on (some specific) night) and öös (in the night).

But öösi in itself is "singular". If you want to make it "plural" - habitual, distributed along space/time - you have to append additional -ti.

I think ööti is also possible. For example: "Unenäod on ööti erinevad." (dreams are different by nights, dreams are different on different nights).
If you would say "Unenäod on öösiti erinevad." then it sounds like you are contrasting the dreams seen during nights to some other dreams (maybe dreams seen during the day time).

Naava wrote:I've seen that film and if I remember correctly, there was more Proto-Finnic there.
I guess I should try to find it from somewhere then.

Seeing there how the first person singular ending was once -m and you were tinä before the consonant shift (duh), it finally hit me how the first and second person personal pronouns could merge with the verbs and form personal verb endings, forming a nice pattern of:
-m... (mi?) :?: (singular) : -mek (dual) : -mak (plural)
-t... (ti?) :?: (singular) : -tek (dual) : -tak (plural)

and the third person was later addition, formed from present active participle.

EDIT:
Naava wrote:este(ks) - sitte for 'before - then'.
Hmm, I think in Estonian I have only heard esteks - nüüd/praegu for 'before - now'.

Linguaphile wrote:Wow, that's pretty cool! Yes, it would be interesting to know more about it. Thanks for the youtube link!
If you are more interested, then the Wikipedia article about Proto-Finnic is a good introductory read and there are a bunch of entries of reconstructed Proto-Finnic "stuff" in Wiktionary.

The past tense of early Proto-Finnic "ei" was also brought up some time ago in one of the threads here, but the link to that article doesn't seem to work any more - in summary: present tense of negative was 'e-' + personal ending + the connegative form of the verb (e.g "en tulek" - I don't come) and past tense was 'eci-' + personal ending + the connegative form of the verb (e.g "ecin tulek" - I didn't come); there were no perfect and pluperfect, just one tense of "minä tullut" - "minä en tullut", the negative form of which squeezed out the usage of past "ei" when perfect and pluperfect were formed following the example of Indo-European languages - if I remember the article correctly.
Eesti keel (et) native, English (en) I can manage, Suomi (fi) trying to learn, Pусский (ru)&Deutsch (de) unfortunately, slowly fading away

Linguaphile
Posts: 436
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2017-01-02, 1:14

Keeleõpikus leidsin küsimuse:
Telliskivi kaalub 1 kg + veel pool tellist. Kui palju kaalub telli?
Kas see tähendab, et 1 telliskivi koos 1/2 tellikiviga kaaluvad 1 kilo? Kas vastus on siis, et telli kaalub 0.66 kilo?
Parandage palun vigu!
Learning is a treasure that follows its owner everywhere. El aprendizaje es un tesoro que sigue a su dueño por todas partes. Õpitu on aare, mis saadab oma omanikku kõikjal. Lernen ist ein Schatz, der seinem Besitzer überallhin folgt. L'apprentissage est un trésor qui suit son propriétaire partout. Txoj kev kawm yog cov khoom muaj nqis, uas raws nws tus tswv qhov txhia chaw. Op'minõ om aarõq, miä saat uma umanikku egäl puul.

User avatar
ainurakne
Posts: 605
Joined: 2012-02-16, 22:09
Gender: male
Country: EE Estonia (Eesti)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ainurakne » 2017-01-02, 9:10

Linguaphile wrote:Keeleõpikust leidsin küsimuse:
Using elative case is much more natural here. Inessive case is also valid, but in my opinion, it emphasizes the aspect that at the time you found something, you were inside (or otherwise interacting with the contents of) the said thing.
Linguaphile wrote:Telliskivi kaalub 1 kg + veel pool tellist. Kui palju kaalub tellis?
Kas see tähendab, et 1 telliskivi koos 1/2 (/poole) tellikiviga kaaluvad 1 kilo? Kas vastus on siis, et tellis kaalub 0.66 kilo?
Minu meelest tähendab see, et tellis kaalub 2 kilo. Siis on pool tellisest 1 kilo ning 1 kilo + pool tellist ongi 2 kilo.

tellis : tellise : tellist

Veel: mina ütleksin "Kas see tähendab, et 1 telliskivi koos 1/2 tellistiviga kaalub 1 kilo?", sest minu meelest on siin vaid üks alus (subject) - 1 telliskivi. Aga see tundub tundub olevat selline asi, mida eestlasedki mõlemat pidi öelda võivad.
Linguaphile wrote:Parandage palun vead!
Both are correct, but using partitive is more like "Please do some mistake correction!", while using accusative makes it "Please correct (all) the mistakes!".
Eesti keel (et) native, English (en) I can manage, Suomi (fi) trying to learn, Pусский (ru)&Deutsch (de) unfortunately, slowly fading away

Linguaphile
Posts: 436
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2017-01-04, 19:51

Suur tänu!
Learning is a treasure that follows its owner everywhere. El aprendizaje es un tesoro que sigue a su dueño por todas partes. Õpitu on aare, mis saadab oma omanikku kõikjal. Lernen ist ein Schatz, der seinem Besitzer überallhin folgt. L'apprentissage est un trésor qui suit son propriétaire partout. Txoj kev kawm yog cov khoom muaj nqis, uas raws nws tus tswv qhov txhia chaw. Op'minõ om aarõq, miä saat uma umanikku egäl puul.

Prantsis
Posts: 80
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Country: FR France (France)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2017-01-11, 23:38

Hello, happy new year!

http://www.eki.ee/books/ekk07 (SÜ 22) wrote:Erinevalt impersonaalist ei pruugi passiiv osutada inimtegijale, nt Nägu oli tuulest ja külmast pargitud. Tegevussubjekti vormistamiseks on ka suurem valik tegijamäärusi. Tõrjutud tegevussubjekti vormistab peale kaassõna poolt, nt Ülesanded olid meie poolt lahendatud, veel seestütlev, nt Õunapuud olid külmast kahjustatud, ja omastav, nt Maja oli Mardi ehitatud.

How do you choose? Can we say as well tuule pargitud nägu, meie lahendatud ülesanded, Mardi poolt ehitatud maja, etc.?

User avatar
ainurakne
Posts: 605
Joined: 2012-02-16, 22:09
Gender: male
Country: EE Estonia (Eesti)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ainurakne » 2017-01-12, 8:37

Head uut aastat sullegi!

Prantsis wrote:How do you choose? Can we say as well tuule pargitud nägu, meie lahendatud ülesanded, Mardi poolt ehitatud maja, etc.?
The examples you brought, seem okay to me.

I don't know exactly how to choose, but I wouldn't use elative case with human subjects - meist lahendatud ülesanded and Mardist ehitatud maja - these just sound plain wrong.

Although, you can see things like: meist maha jäänud ülesanded and Mardist maha jäänud maja. But these use elative even in active form: meist jäid maha ülesanded and Mardist jäi maha maja.

In case of non-living subjects, I think using elative is the most common - tuulest, külmast - and using poolt - tuule poolt, külma poolt - looks like giving too much personality / self-consciousness to these phenomena, although it's not wrong either. But this could be just my personal preference.

Also this "Eesti keele käsiraamat" number 7, that you are linking to, seems a bit old. Number 9 seems to be the current one.
Eesti keel (et) native, English (en) I can manage, Suomi (fi) trying to learn, Pусский (ru)&Deutsch (de) unfortunately, slowly fading away

Prantsis
Posts: 80
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Country: FR France (France)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2017-01-12, 20:17

Thanks! I was suspecting something like that with living and non-living subjects, and it's much more clear now.

isusbellus
Posts: 40
Joined: 2016-04-07, 17:34
Real Name: Isabella
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby isusbellus » 2017-01-19, 11:51

Head uut aastat
Mul on väike küsimus
Palun aidake mul tõlkida: I learned Estonian from this book & I learned some new words from this video
[flag=]sv[/flag] Native [flag=]fi[/flag] B1 [flag=]et[/flag] A1 [flag=]en[/flag] Depends, my pronunciation is bad

User avatar
ainurakne
Posts: 605
Joined: 2012-02-16, 22:09
Gender: male
Country: EE Estonia (Eesti)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ainurakne » 2017-01-19, 14:59

Aitäh! Sulle samuti!

You can use elative case (-st) in both of those sentences.
isusbellus wrote:I learned Estonian from this book
Is it partial action or an action with a definitive end result?

I'm assuming you meant partial action, so I'm using partitive case:
"(Ma) õppisin eesti keelt sellest raamatust." or "(Ma) õppisin sellest raamatust eesti keelt."

isusbellus wrote:I learned some new words from this video
"(Ma) õppisin uusi sõnu sellest videost." or "(Ma) õppisin sellest videost uusi sõnu."

Alternatively, instead of partitive "uusi sõnu", you can also use "mõned uued sõnad", especially if the amount was considerably small.


If the book/video is quite close to you, you are pointing to it or showing it, then it is quite common to also use "siit" instead of "sellest": "siit raamatust", "siit videost".

NB: differently from Finnish, Estonian "siit" means from here.
Eesti keel (et) native, English (en) I can manage, Suomi (fi) trying to learn, Pусский (ru)&Deutsch (de) unfortunately, slowly fading away

callum

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby callum » 2017-01-21, 8:45

Tere! I have a very basic question :D

Te ei tea, kus ta on.
Ma ei tea, kus on ülikool.

Why is the verb in a different position in these two phrases? Would "...kus on ta" and "...kus ülikool on" also be valid?

isusbellus
Posts: 40
Joined: 2016-04-07, 17:34
Real Name: Isabella
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby isusbellus » 2017-01-21, 9:25

ainurakne wrote:Aitäh! Sulle samuti!

You can use elative case (-st) in both of those sentences.
isusbellus wrote:I learned Estonian from this book
Is it partial action or an action with a definitive end result?

I'm assuming you meant partial action, so I'm using partitive case:
"(Ma) õppisin eesti keelt sellest raamatust." or "(Ma) õppisin sellest raamatust eesti keelt."

isusbellus wrote:I learned some new words from this video
"(Ma) õppisin uusi sõnu sellest videost." or "(Ma) õppisin sellest videost uusi sõnu."

Alternatively, instead of partitive "uusi sõnu", you can also use "mõned uued sõnad", especially if the amount was considerably small.


If the book/video is quite close to you, you are pointing to it or showing it, then it is quite common to also use "siit" instead of "sellest": "siit raamatust", "siit videost".

NB: differently from Finnish, Estonian "siit" means from here.


Tänan!!
[flag=]sv[/flag] Native [flag=]fi[/flag] B1 [flag=]et[/flag] A1 [flag=]en[/flag] Depends, my pronunciation is bad

User avatar
ainurakne
Posts: 605
Joined: 2012-02-16, 22:09
Gender: male
Country: EE Estonia (Eesti)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ainurakne » 2017-01-21, 9:52

@isusbellus: Võta heaks!

callum wrote:Would "...kus on ta" and "...kus ülikool on" also be valid?
Yes, you can move the verb around.

In their most neutral form, the verb is usually at the end of the question in Estonian. Except for kas (yes-no/multiple-choice) questions - these vary depending on each question.

callum wrote:Te ei tea, kus ta on.
You can technically swap ta and on: "..., kus on ta."; this moves the emphasis onto the person and thus you should also use the long form of the personal pronoun tema: "..., kus on tema."; but since the emphasis can be marked by the long personal pronoun alone, there is no reason to change the word order and you can do just "..., kus tema on.".

In any way, this specific sentence sounds very unnatural to me if the verb is not at the end.

callum wrote:Ma ei tea, kus on ülikool.
Yes, actually "Ma ei tea, kus ülikool on." sounds more natural to me than "Ma ei tea, kus on ülikool.".

In this case the difference of the two sentences is minuscule (in my opinion), but "..., kus on ülikool." puts more emphasis on ülikool - you are especially interested in the location of the university or in the location of the university among the locations of other places.

Also, in spoken language, the order is often less important, since you can emphasize specific words and specific parts of a sentence.
Eesti keel (et) native, English (en) I can manage, Suomi (fi) trying to learn, Pусский (ru)&Deutsch (de) unfortunately, slowly fading away

callum

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby callum » 2017-01-24, 11:50

ainurakne wrote:You can technically swap ta and on: "..., kus on ta."; this moves the emphasis onto the person and thus you should also use the long form of the personal pronoun tema: "..., kus on tema."; but since the emphasis can be marked by the long personal pronoun alone, there is no reason to change the word order and you can do just "..., kus tema on.".


Tänan! This part in particular was very interesting. :D

I have a few more questions, if that's okay!

1. Is there much of a difference between tundma and teadma? My book says that tundma is "to be acquainted with someone or something" and teadma is "to know the existence of something" or "to know a fact", but in the examples given... I don't really get the difference:

Meie ei tea seda kooli.
Tema ei tunne Tallinna.
Mina ei tunne kaubamaja.
Teie ei tea seda kauplust.
Mina ei tunne seda poissi.

2. Is the partitive usually used when expressing absence? One example is given without the partitive ("Ta ei ole kodus"), but all the other sentences in the chapter use the partitive ("Teda ei ole", "Piretit ei ole linnas", "Tõnu Tamme ei ole siin", etc.).

3. Why is the partitive used in: Ma räägin inglise keelt. Are languages you speak always "partial" objects?

4. "Kui Piret on Tallinnas, elab ta oma isa ja ema juures ja on sageli õhtuti kodus." Here, is "ta oma" one phrase, something like "her own"?

(Thank you in advance if you can help! :D)

User avatar
ainurakne
Posts: 605
Joined: 2012-02-16, 22:09
Gender: male
Country: EE Estonia (Eesti)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ainurakne » 2017-01-24, 19:01

You are welcome!

callum wrote:1. Is there much of a difference between tundma and teadma? My book says that tundma is "to be acquainted with someone or something" and teadma is "to know the existence of something" or "to know a fact", ...
Their meanings (and their difference) can really depend on the context and what you are specifically talking about. But mostly, yes, teadma means that you know that such a thing exists and tunda means that you are more intimately familiar with it.

callum wrote:Meie ei tea seda kooli.
This basically means that we don't (or at least until now, we didn't) know that such a school even existed. If it would have been "Meie ei tunne seda kooli.", then it would be more about the fact that we are not more deeply familiar with any of its internal aspects (specific examples follow in positive example), but we (most likely) know about its existence.

"Meie teame seda kooli." could actually mean pretty much anything from we know that it exists to whatever, although the meaning should usually stay on the beginning of this spectrum. "Meie tunneme seda kooli." on the other hand, should mean that we are quite familiar with at least some aspects of this school. Whether it's knowing the building layout (when talking about the school building), so you can navigate in it with ease or know exactly how and where to find specific places in there or locate specific people who work (or study) there; or being familiar with its organizational structure and/or inner workings, etc...

callum wrote:Mina ei tunne seda poissi.
In case of people, it can be more tricky. This can mean that I am not acquainted with him, although it could also mean that I don't know him at all. I guess, in case of people, tundma maybe used more often in negative sentences than teadma.
If it would have been "Ma ei tea seda poissi." then it would most likely mean that I don't know him at all (have never seen him nor heard about him).

In case of positive "Ma tean seda poissi.", it could mean from I am familiar with his existence to I know a great deal of information about him, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he knows me or that we must be acquainted.
"Ma tunnen seda poissi." most likely means that we are acquainted to each other, likely even good friends.

Also, the verb "tundma" means also to feel (/to sense).

callum wrote:2. Is the partitive usually used when expressing absence? One example is given without the partitive ("Ta ei ole kodus"), but all the other sentences in the chapter use the partitive ("Teda ei ole", "Piretit ei ole linnas", "Tõnu Tamme ei ole siin", etc.).
It depends, but yes, partitive is often used in negation or when something doesn't exist.

"Ta ei ole kodus" - ta is the subject here: (s)he is not at home

In your other examples, the persons are not subjects any more, at least not in the conventional sense - I don't know the exact terminology, so I'm not exactly sure, though. But these sentences translate to something along the lines of: "There is no him/her", "There is no Piret in town" and "There is no Tõnu Tamm in here".

callum wrote:3. Why is the partitive used in: Ma räägin inglise keelt. Are languages you speak always "partial" objects?
Partitive doesn't necessarily mean a partial object. More often than not, it denotes a partial action - either a process or an unbounded action. The opposite of this would be a finite action with a definitive end result - this wouldn't make much sense for the action of speaking a language.

callum wrote:4. "Kui Piret on Tallinnas, elab ta oma isa ja ema juures ja on sageli õhtuti kodus." Here, is "ta oma" one phrase, something like "her own"?
"elab ta" = "ta elab" = she lives
"oma isa ja ema" = her father and mother

The personal pronouns of third persons are usually not omitted in Estonian, so "ta" is the subject here. I have read that Estonian is (somewhat) a verb-second language (or whatever it's called, again I don't remember the exact terms), so if the sentence starts with a time, a place or some other "stuff", then it's often most natural that the next (second) one is the verb and then comes the subject. Exactly what you can see in the sentence you provided.

EDIT: I think the correct wording would be maybe: if a sentence starts with an adverb or an adverbial phrase, then it is (usually) immediately followed by the verb and then the subject. It's the same when you shorten the phrase "kui Piret on Tallinnas", for example "Tallinnas olles elab Piret oma vanemate juures." or "Olles Tallinnas(,) elab Piret oma vanemate juures.". Or simply "Tallinnas elab Piret oma vanemate juures."

These sentences would sound very unnatural if the subject would be before the verb.
Eesti keel (et) native, English (en) I can manage, Suomi (fi) trying to learn, Pусский (ru)&Deutsch (de) unfortunately, slowly fading away

callum

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby callum » 2017-01-28, 19:10

Äitah jälle! Another set of very useful answers, the last part especially so. :mrgreen:

I (thankfully!) only have two questions this time:

1. When negating a phrase that uses one of the "location" cases, do you still use the original case? (I'm guessing the partitive is only used on negative objects, but who knows?) eg. Ma lähen Tartusse > Ma ei lähe Tartusse

2. Is the partitive of Lõuna-Eesti Lõunat-Eestit or Lõuna-Eestit?

:D

Linguaphile
Posts: 436
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2017-01-28, 20:16

Ainurakne will surely give a more complete answer :D , but I'll jump in with a quick response in the meantime:

callum wrote:1. When negating a phrase that uses one of the "location" cases, do you still use the original case? (I'm guessing the partitive is only used on negative objects, but who knows?) eg. Ma lähen Tartusse > Ma ei lähe Tartusse.

Right, you do use the locative cases with negations too: Ma ei lähe Tartusse.
It helps to divided Estonian cases into two groups: grammatical cases (nominative, genitive, partitive) and semantic cases (all the others, including the six locative cases). The semantic cases behave a little differently from the grammatical cases - thankfully, they are simpler for the most part. So, yep, the semantic cases including the illative -sse keep their endings in the negative.

callum wrote:2. Is the partitive of Lõuna-Eesti Lõunat-Eestit or Lõuna-Eestit?

Lõuna-Eestit. Also Lõuna-Eestisse and so on. But I believe this is because Lõuna is part of the placename; if you want to use a descriptive adjective, such as ilus, you do use case endings on both: ilusat Eestit, ilusasse Eestisse.

I have a bad feeling I'm not helping much here, in which case we can just wait for Ainurakne to clear things up.... :whistle:
Last edited by Linguaphile on 2017-01-28, 20:51, edited 1 time in total.
Learning is a treasure that follows its owner everywhere. El aprendizaje es un tesoro que sigue a su dueño por todas partes. Õpitu on aare, mis saadab oma omanikku kõikjal. Lernen ist ein Schatz, der seinem Besitzer überallhin folgt. L'apprentissage est un trésor qui suit son propriétaire partout. Txoj kev kawm yog cov khoom muaj nqis, uas raws nws tus tswv qhov txhia chaw. Op'minõ om aarõq, miä saat uma umanikku egäl puul.

Prantsis
Posts: 80
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Country: FR France (France)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2017-01-28, 20:45

Lõuna is a noun, not an adjective. And in the expression in nominative case Lõuna-Eesti, the word Lõuna is in the genitive case, not nominative. It doesn't change even when it isn't part of a placename:
lõuna rahvas --> lõuna rahvast (people of the South)
With the adjective lõunapoolne:
lõunapoolne Eesti --> lõunapoolset Eestit.

Linguaphile
Posts: 436
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2017-01-28, 23:40

As far as I know, even when a placename is composed of an adjective and a noun, the adjective part of the name doesn't take case endings either. Placenames seem to be treated as single units regardless of whether they are composed of noun+noun or adjective+noun, with case endings added to the end of the whole thing, not to the end of each part. This is true whether the name is hyphenated or written as a single word.

For example:

Suurbritannial (not *Suurel-Britannial or *Suurelbritannial), "in Great Britain" or "on [the island of] Great Britain"
partitive Suurbritanniat (not *Suurtbritanniat)

Uus-Meremaal (not *Uuel-Meremaal), "in New Zealand" or "on [the island of] New Zealand"
partitive Uus-Meremaad (not *Uut-Meremaad)

Väike-Maarjalt (not *Väikselt-Maarjalt or *Väikeselt-Maarjalt), "from Väike-Maarja [town]"
partitive Väike-Maarjat (not *Väikest-Maarjat)

Ladina-Ameerikas (not *Ladinas-Ameerikas), "in Latin America"
partitive Ladina-Ameerika (in this case nominative, genitive & partitive forms are the same though)

A good demonstration of this phenomenon is the following:
Elan vanas linnas. "I live in an old city." (noun with descriptive adjective)
Elan Vanalinnas. "I live in the Old Town." (placename)

And I'll add this one just for fun:
Häädemeesteni "until Häädemeeste" (not *Häädeni-meesteni or *Häädenimeesteni). Here the whole placename itself comes from the genitive plural forms of an adjective and a noun (Häädemeeste = dialect form of heade+meeste lit. '[city] of good men') but as a placename it's treated as a nominative, genitive, and partitive singular form, to which semantic case endings can be added.
Learning is a treasure that follows its owner everywhere. El aprendizaje es un tesoro que sigue a su dueño por todas partes. Õpitu on aare, mis saadab oma omanikku kõikjal. Lernen ist ein Schatz, der seinem Besitzer überallhin folgt. L'apprentissage est un trésor qui suit son propriétaire partout. Txoj kev kawm yog cov khoom muaj nqis, uas raws nws tus tswv qhov txhia chaw. Op'minõ om aarõq, miä saat uma umanikku egäl puul.


Return to “Estonian (Eesti keel)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest