Estonian grammar discussions

[Linguaphile]

Maybe because the problems would be ongoing, I want to use partitive here as if the having of problems is an incomplete action. Or maybe it's because "some" is implicit.

Vabandust, paistab, et eile õhtul segasin osaalust natuke osasihituse tähendusega.

Alus on alati nimetavas või osastavas käändes eksistentsiaalses lauses (eksistentsiaallauses ehk olemasolulauses) nt. Vaadis on bensiin/bensiini. Hilisõhtul tulevad head mõtted/tuleb häid mõtteid. ja omajalauses Kas sul on uued margid/uusi marke?

EKK 2007 SÜNTAKS > Lause põhitüübid:

"Mittenormaallauseile ehk markeeritud teemaga lausetüüpidele (vähimal määral kogejalauseile) on iseloomulik, et alus, kui see on lauses olemas, võib olla peale nimetava käände (täisalus) ka osastavas (osaalus), seejuures eituse korral lausa kohustuslikult, nt Peenral kasvavad lilled / kasvab lilli. Peenral ei kasvanud lilli. Mul on head sõbrad / häid sõpru. Tal ei ole häid sõpru. Poisist kasvas mees. Poisist ei kasvanud meest."

EKK 2007 SÜNTAKS > LAUSE EHITUS > Alus > Täis- ja osaalus:

"Täisalus võib esineda mis tahes tüüpi lauses, osaalus aga ainult olemasolu-, omaja- ja kogejalauses ning lähteseisundit markeerivas tulemuslauses. Kui kontekst ei nõua teisiti, siis nende lausete algul on teadaolevat kohta, aega, omajat vms väljendav määrus, alus aga paikneb uue info kandjana lause lõpus, nt Vaadis on bensiin/bensiini. Hilisõhtul tulevad head mõtted / tuleb häid mõtteid. Kas sul on uued margid / uusi marke?"

Nii et jaatavas omajalauses alus on nimitavas käändes kui tegemist on täisalus, aga osastavas käändes kui tegemist on osaalus. Mõlemad käänded on võimalik.
See, millest ma praegu aru ei saa:
EKK 2007 SÜNTAKS > LAUSE EHITUS > Alus > Täis- ja osaalus:

"Alus on alati osastavas sisult eitavas või kahtlevas (olemasolu-, omaja- jm) lauses, nt Laual pole raamatut. Kas on mõtet seda teha? Juhanist ei saanud teadlast. Kui lause on küll vormilt eitav, kuid sisult jaatav, võib alus olla ka nimetavas käändes, nt Mis mõtted talle pähe ei tule! Alusega tähistatu olemasolu ei eitata ka vastandava mitte .. vaid -ühendi korral, nagu Laual pole (mitte) raamatud (, vaid ajakirjad)."

Kas küsilause nagu "Kas sul on probleeme" on piisavalt kahtlev, et osastava käände kasutamine oleks kohustuslik? Ilmselt mitte, sest meil on näited nagu "Kas sul on uued margid?" Aga aus olla ma ei tea täpselt, miks. Mulle tundub, et sel juhul kasutatakse rohkem osastavat käänet, aga ma ei ole kindel. Ka ma ei saa seletada täpselt, miks ma eelistan küsilauset "kas sul on probleeme?" ainsuse osastavale ("kas sul on probleemi"), sest need on lihtsalt erinevad küsimused ("do you have a problem" ja "do you have problems"). Võib-olla on see isiklik eelistus või lausa olukorra erinevus ja mitte üldse grammatiline küsimus (või lihtsalt mu oma segadus keeleõppijana).

[ainurakne]

Kas sul on probleem?
Kas sul on probleemid?
Kas sul on probleemi?
Kas sul on probleeme?

Minu meelest on nad kõik grammatiliselt korrektsed. Millist kasutada, oleneb sellest, mida küsija täpselt teada tahab.

Ainus, millele mina ei suuda sellist konteksti/lauset välja mõelda, et ta minu jaoks loomulikuna kõlaks, on "Kas sul on probleemi?". Ülejäänute tähendused seletas Linguaphile juba enam-vähem ära. Siiski täpsustaksin neid veidi:

• "Kas sul on probleem?" ~ Do you have a problem?, Do you have some specific problem?, Do you have a problem with the thing that we are already talking about?, etc...
• "Kas sul on probleemid?" ~ Do you have problems?, Do you have a specific set of problems?, Do you have multiple problems with the thing that we are already talking about?, etc...
• "Kas sul on probleeme?" ~ Do you have any problems?, Do you happen to have any problems?, etc...

[suomi888]

Suur aitäh kõige eest!

[Linguaphile]

Topic: (ükskõik) ka ei constructions

I've come across this construction a lot and can understand it but don't quite know when to use it consistently. Most (well, all that I know of ) grammars don't explain its use. So I am just looking at examples of its use (from the book I'm reading and from various EKI publications) to get a better feel for it. Actually until doing this, I hadn't even realized that it's usually used with ükskõik or similar contexts, and that helps a lot.
Initially it confused me that these statements are negative (i.e., contain "ei") when their meanings are that the situations apply (affirmatively) no matter what. I think it makes more sense to me now; it seems to be saying that the stated circumstance would apply not just in the situations that have actually happened but also even in situations that haven't happened. Like in Ükskõik kuhu ka ei vaata, on näha linna, linna ja linna, there is city in the places you look, and there is even city in the places you don't look (ka ei vaata) - there's city everywhere. Or in Kui vägev mees ta ka ei ole, selle korralduse vastu ta ei saa - even if he were a stronger man than he is, he still would not succeed in opposing this directive.

EKSS states in the third entry for "ka" that it ("ka") is used as a [**drags out Eesti-Inglise Keeleteadusesõnastik bilingual linguistics dictionary**] "confirmatory word in concessive clauses that begin with a relative adverb or relative pronoun":

Esineb kinnitava sõnana siduva määr- v. asesõnaga algavas mööndlauses. Kuhu ka ei vaataks, aina liiv ja liiv. Kuidas ta ka ei püüdnud salata, kõik oli asjata. Kui vägev mees ta ka ei ole, selle korralduse vastu ta ei saa. Asitõend jäi leidmata, kui kaua ka otsiti. Kõik jääb endist viisi, mis ka ei juhtuks. Ükskõik missugune ka oleks tulemus, katsetama peab ometi. *Aga kui tark mees kingsepp ka enda meelest oli, pidas ta end siiski targemaks kui tarvis.

With Ükskõik

• Ükskõik kuhu ka ei vaata, on näha linna, linna ja linna. (from Minu Poola, lk. 42)
  "Wherever you look, you see city, city and more city." (lit. "no matter where you also don't look...")
• Töö on hästi tehtud, ükskõik mis nurga alt ka ei vaataks. (EKI Keeleviki Eesti õigekeelsuskäsiraamat, "koma")
  "The word is well done, no matter which angle you look at it from." (lit. "...no matter from under which corner you also don't look")
• See on ikka nii, ükskõik mis ka ei juhtuks. (Eesti keele käsiraamat, SÜ 126)
  "It's still like that, no matter what happens." (lit. "...no matter what doesn't also happen")
• Liitsõna osad kirjutatakse alati kokku, ükskõik mis vormis või ümbruses nad ka ei esineks. (Eesti keele käsiraamat, O 38)
  "Compound words are always written together, no matter in which form or context they appear in." (lit. "no matter in what form or surroundings they also don't appear").

Ükskõik not stated, but implied by context:

• Kuhu ka ei vaataks, aina liiv ja liiv. (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ka")
  "Wherever you look, sand and more sand." (lit. "where [you] also don't look, continually sand and sand")
• Kõik jääb endist viisi, mis ka ei juhtuks. (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ka")
  "Everything remains the same, no matter what happens." (lit. everything stays the former way, what also doesn't happen")
• Kui vägev mees ta ka ei ole, selle korralduse vastu ta ei saa.(Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ka")
  "No matter how strong a man he is, he can't fight against this directive." (lit. "how strong a man he also is not, against this directive he doesn't achieve.")
• Kuhu sa ka ei läheks, igal pool tema ees. (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ei")
  "Wherever you go, there he is." (lit. "wherever you also don't go, everywhere in front of him")
• Kuidas ta ka ei püüdnud salata, kõik oli asjatu. (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ka"/"ei")
  "No matter how he tried to hide it, it was all for nothing." (lit. How he also didn't try to hide it, everything was in vain")
• Kas tead, sa ära karda midagi, kui see ka ei tea mis oleks. (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ei")
  "You know, don't fear anything, even if you don't know what it is." (lit. "...if you also don't know what it may be")

Without Ükskõik or similar context:

• Aja möödudes sain ka järjest iseseisvamaid ülesandeid, millest järeldasin, et ega ma nüüd nii halb ka ei olnud. (Minu Poola, lk. 116)
  "As time went by I received more and more independent tasks, from which I surmised that I'm not so bad now after all." (lit. "...that now I haven't also been so bad.")

Edit: apparently Finnish uses the suffix -pa/-pä in place of ka ei;

• Ükskõik kes ta ka ei oleks, küll ma temaga hakkama saan.
  Olipa hän sitten kuka tahansa, tulen kyllä toimeen hänen kanssaan. (from Wikisanakirja "ükskõik")
  "No matter who he is, I can get along with him"
  Ta mind ei usalda, ükskõik mida ma ka ei teeks.
  Hän ei luota minuun, teinpä mitä tahansa. (from Wikisanakirja "ükskõik")
  "He doesn't trust me, no matter what I do."

[ainurakne]

I've come across this construction a lot and can understand it but don't quite know when to use it consistently.

I have no answer for why and how exactly has this construction evolved in Estonian, but I think that you can quite surely use it consistently wherever the English equivalent is "no matter + question word ...".

Kõik jääb endist viisi, mis ka ei juhtuks. (Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009, "ka")
"Everything remains the same, no matter what happens." (lit. everything stays the former way, what also doesn't happen")

The no in no matter might also be the key to why the Estonian equivalent has formed as a negation.

I feel like there are more such constructions that use negation similarly in seemingly unexplainable manner, but unfortunately no examples pop into my head right now.

[Linguaphile]

Thanks!

I feel like there are more such constructions that use negation similarly in seemingly unexplainable manner, but unfortunately no examples pop into my head right now.

Me, too. I know I've come across them quite a bit and just decided that everytime I came across one in my reading, I'd jot it down and then analyze them to see what patterns I could find. But since deciding that so far I only came across the ones I wrote above and they are all this same sort of "no matter + question word", mostly "[ükskõik] [question word] + ka ei" or just "[question word] + ka ei". And that really surprised me, because I also did have a feeling that I've seen them in different contexts that weren't like that but, like you said, no examples pop into my head either.
Except there's this one:
Aja möödudes sain ka järjest iseseisvamaid ülesandeid, millest järeldasin, et ega ma nüüd nii halb ka ei olnud. (Minu Poola, lk. 116)
It's still "ka ei", but there's no question word in the "ka ei" clause and I think it should be translated as more like "after all", certainly not "no matter what". (I've translated it as "As time went by I received more and more independent tasks, from which I surmised that I'm not so bad now after all.")
So I'll continue to keep an eye out for these sorts of things and see what else I find.


By the way, the author I'm currently reading uses the word mõistagi constantly, where I would have used muidugi. I don't think I've every encountered it so often as I have in this book. Is it like a stylistic or personal preference or regional? Any thoughts? The author makes a point of mentioning that she's a native Russian speaker, but I don't think there's anything at all non-native about her Estonian, so I can't imagine that's it. It may be that I'm just noticing the word mõistagi so much in her book because after she used it a few times I started watching for it, and you know how you start seeing things everywhere once you start watching for them.... (except for those elusive negative constructions discussed above, now I can't find those anywhere ).

[ainurakne]

By the way, the author I'm currently reading uses the word mõistagi constantly, where I would have used muidugi. I don't think I've every encountered it so often as I have in this book. Is it like a stylistic or personal preference or regional? Any thoughts? The author makes a point of mentioning that she's a native Russian speaker, but I don't think there's anything at all non-native about her Estonian, so I can't imagine that's it.

I think it's personal preference. Or more like what the person has become used to using while learning the language in case Estonian was not her first language and she learned it later on.

When there are multiple synonyms for saying something, then people, who learn the language while they are older, usually pick the first thing that they are exposed to and then stick to it.

Aja möödudes sain ka järjest iseseisvamaid ülesandeid, millest järeldasin, et ega ma nüüd nii halb ka ei olnud. (Minu Poola, lk. 116)
It's still "ka ei", but there's no question word in the "ka ei" clause and I think it should be translated as more like "after all", certainly not "no matter what". (I've translated it as "As time went by I received more and more independent tasks, from which I surmised that I'm not so bad now after all.")

I think "after all" is a good general translation to this indeed.

Also this makes me think that "ega" might be one of the words that attracts weird constructions around it.

Although not weird per se, one of the constructs are the question words that start with "ega", for example: Ega sa poes (ju) ei käinud? - technically, it could be perceived as the same as "Kas sa poes käisid?", but it adds the subjective viewpoint of the asker. In my opinion, the asker is either already assuming or fearing that the answer will be negative, or the asker doesn't want to pressure the askee and thus use this construction to indicate that a negative answer would be okay as well.

[Linguaphile]

Although not weird per se, one of the constructs are the question words that start with "ega", for example: Ega sa poes (ju) ei käinud? - technically, it could be perceived as the same as "Kas sa poes käisid?", but it adds the subjective viewpoint of the asker. In my opinion, the asker is either already assuming or fearing that the answer will be negative, or the asker doesn't want to pressure the askee and thus use this construction to indicate that a negative answer would be okay as well.

This is pretty common in Spanish as well (so most likely common in quite a few other languages too). In both Spanish and Estonian it took me a little bit to get used to hearing it; since it's not so common in English, when I heard it my first reaction tended to be to think "why are you assuming I haven't?" Especially if the question was requesting help for something, I'd think "what have I done to make this person expect that I'm not going to help them??" And meanwhile the person was asking it in that way just to be polite. So at first I would understand it the first way you described it - "the asker is already assuming or fearing that the answer will be negative", but I think often it's meant in the second way: to be more polite and not so presumptuous about the expected answer.
This also makes me think of a similar use of ehk: Ehk saad mulle paar eurot laenata? Kas sul on ehk veidike aega? Could you perhaps loan me a couple euros? Do you have a moment by any chance?

[Linguaphile]

So I'll continue to keep an eye out for these sorts of things and see what else I find.

Ära nüüd nii pead selga ka aja, küll tuleb veel tagasilöök.
Don't get too cocky, it will come back to bite you. (idiomatic)


Ma istusin [...] ja ootasin, et mu naine tagasi tuleks, kus ta ka ei ole.
I've been sitting [...] waiting for my wife to come back from wherever she is.

[Linguaphile]

So I'll continue to keep an eye out for these sorts of things and see what else I find.

I'm finally remembering what these mean when I come across them, not having to puzzle over them each time. Not sure why it took me so long, but putting several in this thread seems to have helped me move past that.

Ta tahab rääkida Jeesusjumalast ja tema lunastusest, mis iganes see siis ka ei oleks = he wants to talk about the Lord Jesus and his salvation, whatever that is. - from Raudrästiku aeg by Indrek Hargla.

"Mis kokkuleppeid iganes sinu vend koerakoonlastega ka ei sõlminud, on need nüüd tühised," sōnas Aotōiv. = whatever agreements your brother may have made with the dog-headed men, they are null and void now," Aotōiv said. - also from Raudrästiku aeg.