Moderator:aaakknu
Not precisely, at least not in the physical way. The verb "käsitsema" is for that.Linguaphile wrote:... the verb käsitlema literally means "handles," ...
ainurakne wrote:Not precisely, at least not in the physical way. The verb "käsitsema" is for that.Linguaphile wrote:... the verb käsitlema literally means "handles," ...
ainurakne wrote:But this is a really difficult word to directly translate into English. I can't think of a way to even remotely convey it's exact meaning in English.
garrett wrote:My question aims to understand whether using each particle may have anything to do with the sentence lenght. I mean, if kohta goes at the very end of a short sentence, it doesn't affect our comprehension of that sentence, but in a long sentence we wouldn't know this important piece of information until having read the whole thing. Mis käsitleb instead forms a relative clause and this way we can know what type of sentence it is from the very beginning. Does it make any sense?
Okay...Linguaphile wrote:Not in the physical sense of "handle these crystal vases with care so that they don't break" but in the other sense of "she's the one who is responsible for handling that issue/situation/etc"...
I think you may be somewhat correct.garrett wrote:My question aims to understand whether using each particle may have anything to do with the sentence lenght. I mean, if kohta goes at the very end of a short sentence, it doesn't affect our comprehension of that sentence, but in a long sentence we wouldn't know this important piece of information until having read the whole thing. Mis käsitleb instead forms a relative clause and this way we can know what type of sentence it is from the very beginning. Does it make any sense?
when being really pedantic*, then the relative clause should come right after whatever it modifies, not after the postposition. Especially here where "kohta" applies for both "ametlik kontroll" and "muud ametlikud toimingud", but (forgive me if I'm mistaken) the relative clause seems to only modify "muud ametlikud toimingud".Linguaphile wrote:"ametliku kontrolli ja muude ametlike toimingute kohta, mida tehakse eesmärgiga tagada ..."
ainurakne wrote:Also, when handling vases, I would rather use käitlema than käsitsema. As käsitsema means more like using something as a tool or means rather than some random thing that you move around.
Although, käitlema is not so common in colloquial language. You would more likely hear something along the lines of "Ole nende vaasidega ettevaatlik!" or "Vaata, et sa neid vaase katki ei tee!".Linguaphile wrote:ainurakne wrote:Also, when handling vases, I would rather use käitlema than käsitsema. As käsitsema means more like using something as a tool or means rather than some random thing that you move around.
Good to know! Thank you.
ainurakne wrote:While this is generally okaywhen being really pedantic*, then the relative clause should come right after whatever it modifies, not after the postposition. Especially here where "kohta" applies for both "ametlik kontroll" and "muud ametlikud toimingud", but (forgive me if I'm mistaken) the relative clause seems to only modify "muud ametlikud toimingud".Linguaphile wrote:"ametliku kontrolli ja muude ametlike toimingute kohta, mida tehakse eesmärgiga tagada ..."
(* at least that's the impression I got from school; so when writing anything remotely formal, I always try to avoid putting anything between a relative clause and the thing it modifies)
Sorry, but I don't see what exactly and why would I try to avoid here.Prantsis wrote:„Kasina toiduvaru ja kahetsusega südames alustasin oma teekonda, kõndides pikki kilomeetreid mööda palavaid liiva- ja kivirandu, rassides läbi tiheda roostiku; kui enam maad mööda minna ei saanud, sumpasin läbi madala vee.” (Mehis Heinsaar)
Do you also try to avoid these kinds of things?
ainurakne wrote:Not precisely, at least not in the physical way. The verb "käsitsema" is for that.Linguaphile wrote:... the verb käsitlema literally means "handles," ...
But this is a really difficult word to directly translate into English. I can't think of a way to even remotely convey it's exact meaning in English.
Yes, there are more such words (although, among those examples, there are also words where part of the -tlema is already part of the word stem). Interestingly, -tlema has two parallel forms: -tlema/-tleda and more Finnish-like -telema/-tella.Naava wrote:Does Estonian have more words with a similar ending (-tlema) or could it be a loanword from Finnish? (If it was, it might explain why there's a different word for physical handling.)
I think -tlema is (often) a similar form to the one present in "lendlema" - a word that was discussed somewhere here, some time ago.
ainurakne wrote:Sorry, but I don't see what exactly and why would I try to avoid here.Prantsis wrote:„Kasina toiduvaru ja kahetsusega südames alustasin oma teekonda, kõndides pikki kilomeetreid mööda palavaid liiva- ja kivirandu, rassides läbi tiheda roostiku; kui enam maad mööda minna ei saanud, sumpasin läbi madala vee.” (Mehis Heinsaar)
Do you also try to avoid these kinds of things?
I guess so (or relics from the past). At least I don't sense any difference in their meanings. Maybe just "-telema/-tella" feels more poetic.Naava wrote:That is indeed very interesting! I wonder why there's two variants. Dialects? (That's my favourite explanation for everything.)
Hah, "kätlema" was the first example that popped into my mind when you asked whether there are more words with "-tlema".Naava wrote:Of course there are words where this doesn't work, like käsi - kätellä - käsittää - käsitellä ...
I see.Prantsis wrote:And I was wondering if what you said also applied to:
kasina toiduvaru ja kahetsuse kiuste südames
and to:
kasina toiduvaru ja kahetsusega südames
I guess the answer is no.
I dug around in the rules and it seems that things are actually more complicated with genitive. For example, when a noun itself is omastavas käändes täiend, then the relative clause cannot be put right after this täiend, as täiend can't be separated from the main word. The same goes for postpositions.Prantsis wrote:You discussed this: kasina toiduvaru ja kahetsuse kiuste, mis südames on
ainurakne wrote:But I'm still not sure about the cases when a postposition applies to many items in a list, but the relative clause applies only to the last item (as in kasina toiduvaru ja kahetsuse kiuste -> kasina toiduvaru kiuste and kahetsuse kiuste). I think I would still try to get rid of the relative clause, just in case. For example: "kasina toiduvaru ja südames oleva kahetsuse kiuste".
ainurakne wrote:For example, when a noun itself is omastavas käändes täiend, then the relative clause cannot be put right after this täiend, as täiend can't be separated from the main word.
Hmm, now that you put it this way, I can realize it is ambiguous indeed.Prantsis wrote:((kasina toiduvaru) ja (kahetsuse)ga südames)
depending which words the reader emphasizes and how one organizes the rhythm and pace of the sentence.Prantsis wrote:You somehow said that "X-i ja Y-i kohta, mida..." was less clear than just "X ja Y, mida..."
Good point.Prantsis wrote:In such cases, I think there's often something else to remove the ambiguity. For example, words like "see" or "selline". (Ta räägib selle mehe vennast, kes...)
Return to “Estonian (Eesti keel)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests