UniLang

I'm not sure whether this is going to be helpful, but sometimes threads with useful information get eventually lost among the new ones, and sometimes the same questions get asked over and over, so when I saw the threads about "accussative / partitive" and "future tense", I thought I would make it sticky and easy to find, as those topics are often confusing for beginners (and not only beginners, honestly )

We can use these threads for further discussion of the topics.

1. Future tense
2. Accusative / partitive cases
3. -ma and -da infinitives
4. Illlative case
5. Simple past
6. Decimal numbers
7. Derivational infixes for verbs

We could create other threads about difficult grammar topics, it could be some kind of a "series", what do you think?
If you like this idea, what topics do you think we should cover next?
I'm not a native speaker, so my knowledge is not perfect, I frequently make mistakes myself, but I thought I could use "Eesti keele grammatika" from the eki.ee website or other helpful Estonian sources that aren't accessible to beginners and translate some useful information. Ainurakne could also write some explanations and examples, since he is a native speaker (if he is willing and has the time to do so, of course).

What do you think?

aaakknu wrote:I'm not sure whether this is going to be helpful, but sometimes threads with useful information get eventually lost among the new ones, and sometimes the same questions get asked over and over, so when I saw the threads about "accussative / partitive" and "future tense", I thought I would make it sticky and easy to find, as those topics are often confusing for beginners (and not only beginners, honestly )

We can use these threads for further discussion of the topics.

1. Future tense
2. Accusative / partitive cases

We could create other threads about difficult grammar topics, it could be some kind of a "series", what do you think?
If you like this idea, what topics do you think we should cover next?
I'm not a native speaker, so my knowledge is not perfect, I frequently make mistakes myself, but I thought I could use "Eesti keele grammatika" from the eki.ee website or other helpful Estonian sources that aren't accessible to beginners and translate some useful information. Ainurakne could also write some explanations and examples, since he is a native speaker (if he is willing and has the time to do so, of course).

What do you think?

I like your idea, too! I also can post translations of explanations from the EKI site, or from some of the texts I have. Off the top of my head I am not sure which topics would be the most useful, but maybe after I look the look through the materials I will post something. Or anyone reading this can offer suggestions regarding topics they'd like to see.

I think I have explained the difference between ma- and da-infinitive more than a few times. The most recent I found, seems to be this - unfortunately it's in Estonian, though. A lot of them are probably buried in Küsimusi eesti keele kohta, together with lots of more good stuff -- that thread used to be quite active a few years back and was the default place for anything grammar related.

aaakknu wrote:Ainurakne could also write some explanations and examples, since he is a native speaker (if he is willing and has the time to do so, of course).

Sure. If anyone would tell me what to write about.

ainurakne wrote:I think I have explained the difference between ma- and da-infinitive more than a few times.

Indeed you have!
I doubt this is even all of them:

ma- and da- infinitives
ma- and da-infinitives, continued
-nud/-tud, -ma/-da (eesti keeles)
when to use the ma-infinitive
verbs that require the ma-infinitive
short discussion about ma- and da-infinitives
da-infinitive without et
relative past-present-future formed using ma-infinitive forms (inessive, illative, elative)
more about inessive, illative, elative verb forms with -ma

Well, it just goes to show that aaakknu's idea is a good one. If we had had a thread for ma-/da-infinitives, when new people asked we would have just directed them to that thread, instead of starting over with the explanations.

Edit: I just created a thread and post for this topic.

Linguaphile wrote:Edit: I just created a thread and post for this topic.

Thank you! I just added it to the list.
I will post something later too. Maybe tomorrow.

Added these grammar topics as well:

Lihtminevik (simple past)
Sisseütlev (illative case)

Hi all learners, I don't know how active is this forum, but I have some questions on Estonian grammar, particularly on complement and object. Please tell me if my reasonings are correct.

The first question I have is on object:
Here are some examples I made on objects in nominative plural, genitive sg, partitive sg, and partitive pl.

1. Ma söön õuna (osastav). I am eating/ eat part of an apple.
2. Ma söön õuna (omastav). I will eat/eat an apple completely.
3. Ma söön õunu (mitmuse osastav). I am eating some of the apples.
4. Ma söön õunad (mitmuse nimetav). I eat all apples.

5. Ostsin toitu. I bought some food.
6. Ostsin raamatuid. I bought some books.
7. Ostsin raamatu. I bought a book.

My reasonings are as follows:

Words such as "eat", or "read" can be followed by either total object or partial object, since you can "eat" or "read" part of one thing (1), the whole thing (2), part of all things (3), and all of them (4).

Words such as "buy" usually have partitive plural for indefinite and concrete things (5), and partitive singular for indefinite abstract things (6).

Only in some rare situations, you can buy some part of a concrete or definite product (partitive), like in sentence 8.

8. Ostsin raamatut. I bought part of a book (like a few pages).


The second question is on complement:

So complement is used to describe what a thing is, it can be an adjective or a noun. I have trouble selecting which form should be used for subject and complement.

From my research on Google, Estonian subject can be nominative, nominative plural, rarely partitive, and partitive plural.

1. Reklaam on tüütu. The (One) advertisement is annoying.
2. Reklaamid on tüütud. All advertisements are annoying.
3. Reklaami on tüütu. Some parts of the (one) advertisement are annoying.
3. Reklaame on tüütuid. Some parts of all these advertisements are annoying.

If the subject is in nominative or partitive, the complement is in nominative singular (tüütu).
If the subject is in nominative plural, the complement is in nominative plural (tüütud).
If the subject is in partitive plural, the complement is in partitive plural (tüütuid).
All the rules above work with nouns, too.

However,
*In cases like an adverbial, nominative sg or partitive plural is used.

4. Hilisõhtul tulevad head mõtted/tuleb häid mõtteid.
5. Kas sul on uued margid/uusi marke?

Unless, again, some part of a concrete or definite thing is in somewhere.

6. Kas sul on raamatut? Do you have some parts of the book?
7. Soome on osa põhjamaa. Finland is part of Nordic countries.

*Indefinite and abstract things in adverbial sentences are usually partitive singular.

8. Vaadis on bensiini.
9. Klaasis on vett.
10. Meil on lootust.
11. Aias kasvas lilli.

*In negative sentences, only partitive singular is used.

12. Laual pole raamatut.


Please correct me if I made any mistake. Thank you!

I think you are focusing so much on the wholeness/partialness of the things the objects represent, that you are forgetting the action itself. Of course, partitive grammatical object could mean that you are dealing with only a part of an object or a partial set of objects, but it could also mean that the action is non-resultative or perceived as a process.

suomi888 wrote:1. Ma söön õuna (osastav). I am eating/ eat part of an apple.
3. Ma söön õunu (mitmuse osastav). I am eating some of the apples.

These could also be translated simply as "I am eating an apple" and "I am eating apples" - what's important is that we are talking about a process, it doesn't matter how many apples will actually get eaten.

suomi888 wrote:2. Ma söön õuna (omastav). I will eat/eat an apple completely.
4. Ma söön õunad (mitmuse nimetav). I eat all apples.

Many verbs require an additional "helper" word when used with a total object. The verb "sööma" is usually accompanied by "ära":
Ma söön õuna ära.
Ma söön õunad ära.

suomi888 wrote:5. Ostsin toitu. I bought some food.
6. Ostsin raamatuid. I bought some books.

In this case I agree that these more likely indicate the partialness / abstractness of the objects rather than the action being a process.

Although, this really depends on the context, for example ...
"... kui ma toitu ostsin ..." - when/while I was buying food
"... kui ma raamatuid ostsin ..." - when/while I was buying books
... are definitely processes.

suomi888 wrote:8. Ostsin raamatut. I bought part of a book (like a few pages).

Or more likely - "I was buying a book".

suomi888 wrote:1. Reklaam on tüütu. The (One) advertisement is annoying.
2. Reklaamid on tüütud. All advertisements are annoying.

"Reklaamid on tüütud." more likely means that advertisements (in general) are annoying, rather than all the advertisements being annoying. "Reklaam on tüütu." could mean the same thing, they are just referred to as an abstract phenomenon rather than as individual advertisements. If this would refer to a single specific advertisement, then I think this would have been specified in the sentence.

suomi888 wrote:3. Reklaami on tüütu. Some parts of the (one) advertisement are annoying.

Where did you find this? It looks like a typo, or a part of a sentence (e.g. "Reklaami on tüütu vaadata.").

suomi888 wrote:3. Reklaame on tüütuid. Some parts of all these advertisements are annoying.

This means "There are annoying advertisements." or "There are advertisements that are annoying.". This could stand on its own, but is more likely a part of something bigger, e.g. a comparing list: "Reklaame on tüütuid ja vähem tüütuid." - "There are advertisements that are annoying and there are ones that are less so."

suomi888 wrote:6. Kas sul on raamatut? Do you have some parts of the book?

Without knowing the context, it seems a little weird, but I think it's rather "Do you have a book?" / "Do you own a book?".

suomi888 wrote:Soome on osa Põhjalast. or Soome on üks Põhjamaadest. or Soome on Põhjamaa.

suomi888 wrote:8. Vaadis on bensiini.
9. Klaasis on vett.
10. Meil on lootust.
11. Aias kasvas lilli.

You could also use nominative case with these:
"Vaadis on bensiin." (the tank contains gasoline / it is gasoline that is in the tank) vs. "Vaadis on bensiini." (there is some gasoline in the tank)
"Klaasis on vesi. (the glass contains water / it is water that is in the glass) vs. "Klaasis on vett." (there is some water in the glass)
"Aias kasvasid lilled." (flowers grew in the garden) vs. "Aias kasvas lilli." (there were some flowers growing in the garden)

"Meil on lootust." is a bit different. I would use nominative only when talking about some specific hope, for example: "Meil on lootus, et ..." (we have hope that ...), although even then partitive could be better.

suomi888 wrote:Hi all learners, I don't know how active is this forum, but I have some questions on Estonian grammar, particularly on complement and object.

Tere tulemast! Welcome to this board! Ainurakne is our resident native speaker so there isn't much I can add to his response.

ainurakne wrote:I think you are focusing so much on the wholeness/partialness of the things the objects represent, that you are forgetting the action itself. Of course, partitive grammatical object could mean that you are dealing with only a part of an object or a partial set of objects, but it could also mean that the action is non-resultative or perceived as a process.

I can't add much to what Ainrurakne explained, but I just want to say it in my non-native-speaker perspective in case hearing it a different way helps to understand the difference between whole and partial object. In my experience things become clearer after I've heard them explained in more than one way (like reading about it in two grammar books, or hearing it explained by two different people).

Partial object has TWO roles: (1) it expresses the partialness of a thing [this includes negatives, which by definition cannot be "whole"]; (2) it also expresses an incomplete or unfinished action.

Like Ainurakne said, you are focusing on the first use, and ignoring or unaware of the second use. Maybe it would help you to think of (2) as a "partial action".

You are only going to use a case other than the partitive (i.e., nominative or genitive) for an object if three conditions line up perfectly: (1) the action involves the whole object in its entirety rather than part of it (2) the action leads to completion or has been completed and (3) the sentence is not negative.
The numbers below refer to your original sentences. Note that I've put your sentences 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 in more than one category!

Does the sentence involve a partial object? Use the partitive case. (You've got this!)
1. Ma söön õuna. = I eat part of an apple / I am eating part of an apple (non-whole object)
3. Ma söön õunu. = I eat some of the apples / I am eating some of the apples (non-whole object)
5. Ostsin toitu. = I bought some food (non-whole object; I didn't buy all of it)
6. Ostsin raamatuid. = I bought some books (non-whole object; I didn't buy all of them)
8. Ostsin raamatut. = I bought part of a book (non-whole object; theoretically this meaning is possible but the situation is so unusual, it's much more likely to have the mean listed below)

Is the sentence negative? Use the partitive case. (I think you've got this too!)

Is the action ongoing, unfinished or otherwise incomplete? Use the partitive case. (This is the part I think you are having problems with.)
1. Ma söön õuna. = I am eating an apple (incomplete action; I haven't finished eating it)
3. Ma söön õunu. = I am eating apples (incomplete action; I haven't finished eating them)
5. Ostsin toitu = I was buying food (incomplete action; I hadn't finished buying it)
6. Ostsin raamatuid. = I was buying books (incomplete action; I hadn't finished buying them)
8. Ostsin raamatut. = I was buying a book (incomplete action; I hadn't finished buying it)

Does the sentence involve a whole object, a complete action, and an affirmative idea? Then, and only then, will you use an object in a case other than the partitive.
2. Ma söön õuna ära. = I eat the apple completely / I will eat the apple completely
4. Ma söön õunad ära. = I eat all the apples / I will eat all the apples
7. Ostsin raamatu. = I bought a book (the action of buying it is complete)

In addition to my post above, here are some more thoughts regarding the two different ways to understand partial object (non-whole object versus incomplete action).
I'm posting this as a separate post rather than adding to the previous one, because this post has more to do with the differences in the meanings of the Estonian sentences versus their (multiple) translations into English, rather than the original question which dealt more with forming the Estonian sentences. It's the other post (above this one) that is meant to answer the question, not this one. This one is just my ramblings about partial object in translation to English.

An English-speaking brain might think it seems ambiguous that both of these are said the same way in Estonian:
1. Ma söön õuna. = I eat part of an apple (non-whole object; maybe I just don't want the whole thing)
1. Ma söön õuna. = I am eating an apple (incomplete action; maybe I want the whole thing but I just haven't finished it yet)
But think about it... in both cases the apple is partially eaten at the time I say the sentence. Maybe I will finish it, maybe I won't, but that hasn't happened yet so we can't be sure. We aren't focused on what might be or what might have been, just on what has already occurred. The focus is on what we know for sure: right now the apple is partially eaten, and partially uneaten.

Now, with a sentence like this
8. Ostsin raamatut. = I bought part of a book (non-whole object; "just a few pages please!")
8. Ostsin raamatut. = I was buying a book (incomplete action; I hadn't finished buying it)
the meanings in the two translations seem really divergent, but the thing here is that the first meaning simply isn't likely to happen. If we are interrupted in the process of buying a book, that doesn't mean that we walk out of the store with only a few pages of the book in our hand because we weren't able to complete the whole transaction. That's just not how buying books works. So, when two meanings are possible (an incomplete action or a non-whole object) you just use context and common sentence to figure out which meaning is meant. In a lot of contexts, only one translation makes sense.

If it's still ambiguous and context + common sense don't help you to know whether it is the action or the item itself that is partial, it's probably because it doesn't even really matter which is meant. This might sometimes pose a problem for translation into English, but it doesn't really pose a problem in Estonian itself. The focus is on what has happened so far, without making any assumptions about what might happen after that.

Like with the apple: if someone tells you they were in the process of eating part of an apple (ma sõin õuna) when their tooth broke, do you really even care to find out whether or not they had originally intended to eat the whole apple? It doesn't matter; the apple is unlikely to be eaten completely at this point, regardless of what the original intentions were. You would translate it as I was eating an apple when my tooth broke. But it wouldn't be wrong to translate it as I had eaten part of the apple when my tooth broke or I was eating part of an apple when my tooth broke and either English sentence fits the context just fine. Whether the partitive case refers to an incomplete action (being partway through the unfinished act of eating the whole apple) or a non-whole object (being finished with eating part of the apple) or both (being partway through the unfinished act of eating part of an apple) is irrelevant; at this point what is important is that while eating some of the apple, the tooth broke.

Thanks you folks for these insightful explanations.

One thing to point out in the sentence I made. I was thinking that if the subject can be partitive, as in "klaasis on vett.", why can't partitive be the subjective of this predicative clause grammatically?

suomi888 wrote:3. Reklaami on tüütu. Some parts of the (one) advertisement are annoying.

So let me clear this one last thing, in both complete and incomplete actions, the object in negative sentence can be both partitive singular and plural, as in:
1. Ära kunagi unusta 4. juunit. - Never forget June 4th.
2. Ma ei võtnud raamatuid. - I did not take the books.

Concerning clauses with total object, they are usually marked with "ära", "läbi", "üles", or "valmis". As in:
1. Lugesin raamatu läbi. - I read the book (through).
2. Õpin eesti keelt ära. - I learned Estonian (fluently or completely).

However, I also saw this sentence with incomplete action, which is also marked with the "helper".
3. Kui loen raamatuid läbi,... - While I was reading the book (through),...


I'm not quite sure are these all related, but I noticed that in Estonian, a lot of verbs have these kind of helpers or markers, and they usually change the meaning a bit. For instance:

Ära tundma: To recognize
Välja otsima: To find out
Ära ostma: To buy or purchase
Välja minema: To go out of
Ära tapma: To murder

suomi888 wrote:One thing to point out in the sentence I made. I was thinking that if the subject can be partitive, as in "klaasis on vett.", why can't partitive be the subjective of this predicative clause grammatically?

suomi888 wrote:3. Reklaami on tüütu. Some parts of the (one) advertisement are annoying.

Partitive subject is only used in specific situations and so it can't be used in just any sentence. Basically, it's used in existential clauses ("there is/there are" and similar constructions) and in some sentences indicating possession.
Klaasis on vett is the first type; it means "there is some water in the glass".
An example of the possessive type is Tal on uusi sõpru "he has some new friends".
The word order used in in these two examples is very typical. The partitive subject doesn't come at the beginning of the sentence, i.e. not *Vett on klassis, *Uusi sõpru on tal. Instead it comes after the verb.
Your other examples from your earlier post were like this as well:
Vaadis on bensiini. = There is some gas in the tank.
Aias kasvas lilli. = There were some flowers growing in the garden.
Same criteria as above: it indicates the existence of something, and the partitive subject comes at the end, after the verb.

But your sentence here is a different type of sentence entirely, so we can't use a partitive subject:

suomi888 wrote:3. Reklaami on tüütu. Some parts of the (one) advertisement are annoying.

suomi888 wrote:However, I also saw this sentence with incomplete action, which is also marked with the "helper".
3. Kui loen raamatuid läbi,... - While I was reading the book (through),...

What was the context of this phrase (the rest of the sentence), and how did you come up with that translation? I'm not sure what they're trying to say without seeing the rest of the sentence, but it might be if/when I read some of the books through...

suomi888 wrote:I'm not quite sure are these all related, but I noticed that in Estonian, a lot of verbs have these kind of helpers or markers, and they usually change the meaning a bit. For instance:

Ära tundma: To recognize
Välja otsima: To find seek out
Ära ostma: To buy or purchase
Välja minema: To go out of
Ära tapma: To murder

Yes. They are compound verbs (ühendtegusõnad ehk ühendverbid) also known as particle verbs. Verbs like läbi lugema fall into this group too.

suomi888 wrote:3. Reklaami on tüütu. Some parts of the (one) advertisement are annoying.

You could make the whole thing partitive similarly to the same example in partitive plural:
"Reklaami on tüütut ..." (as in e.g. "Reklaami on tüütut ja vähem tüütut.")
But "Reklaami on tüütu." just doesn't make any sense for me, but I can't tell, why. I think, Linguaphile has explained it well enough.

suomi888 wrote:2. Õpin eesti keele selgeks/ära. - I will learn Estonian (fluently or completely).

suomi888 wrote:However, I also saw this sentence with incomplete action, which is also marked with the "helper".
3. Kui loen raamatuid läbi,... - While I was reading the book (through),...

Yes, this is completely valid - "When/while (being in the process of) reading through the books ...".

EDIT: Also "When/while doing some of that reading-through-the-books action ..." if that makes any sense in English.

suomi888 wrote:Ära ostma: To buy or purchase
Ära tapma: To murder

While the others might be compounds that give a different meaning to the verb, then these are just for emphasis - it's perfectly fine to use these verbs without "ära".

Linguaphile wrote:I can't add much to what Ainrurakne explained, but I just want to say it in my non-native-speaker perspective in case hearing it a different way helps to understand the difference between whole and partial object.

Good posts.
Much more thought through and explanative than my ramblings.

Linguaphile wrote:

suomi888 wrote:However, I also saw this sentence with incomplete action, which is also marked with the "helper".
3. Kui loen raamatuid läbi,... - While I was reading the book (through),...

What was the context of this phrase (the rest of the sentence), and how did you come up with that translation? I'm not sure what they're trying to say without seeing the rest of the sentence, but it might be if/when I read some of the books through...

I actually saw this sentence in my notebook, and I remember I found it on Facebook.
Apparently it doesn't work, since "läbi" already means read sth. through, and can't be used in the same sentence with continuous tense. My bad for bringing that up.


But this is actually related to the last question I am about to ask - The placement of "helper". Sorry if these kinds of question are a bit redundant, I really want to know out how object works in Estonian.

So these words usually mark the "completion" of one sentence. But can these words appear in these situations (bold texts)?

In situations like:
*Negative sentences (I personally think that it doesn't work here, since partial object and completion clash together in terms of meaning. However, someone on Facebook corrected me in these ways: Sentence number 9 and 10. I just want to know why he or she would think that way).
*Imperative (you ask someone to read something through).
*Future tense (you anticipate reading sth. through).
*Or like in sentence number 3, where you can use the word "üks" to replace completion helper "läbi".

1) Lugesin artiklit. I was reading an article.
2) Lugesin artikleid. I was reading some articles.
3) Lugesin ühe artikli / Lugesin artikli läbi. I read one article.
6) Ma lugesin artiklid läbi. I read through all articles.
7) Ma ei lugenud artiklit. I didn´t read an article.
8) Ma ei lugenud artikleid. I didn't read some articles.
9) Ma ei lugenud artiklit läbi. I didn't read through the article.
10) Ma ei lugenud artikleid läbi. I didn't read through some articles.
11) Loe (üks) artikkel läbi! Read an article through!
12) Ma loen artikli läbi. I will read through the article.
13) Loe (need) artiklid läbi! Read (these) articles through!
14) Loe artikke! Read an article!
15) Loe artiklid! Read articles!
16) Loe artiklit! (rare) Read some parts of the article! (As in sentence like "joo vett" - drink some water.)
17) Ära loe artiklit! Don't read an article!
18) Ära loe artikleid! Don't read some articles!

Thank you for your corrections and explanations.

ainurakne wrote:

suomi888 wrote:However, I also saw this sentence with incomplete action, which is also marked with the "helper".
3. Kui loen raamatuid läbi,... - While I was reading the book (through),...

Yes, this is completely valid - "When/while (being in the process of) reading through the books ...".

Not until I finished replying to Linguaphile did I see your reply.
As I mentioned in my last threat, I though "läbi" and partial object can't exist in the same sentence...

suomi888 wrote:As I mentioned in my last threat, I though "läbi" and partial object can't exist in the same sentence...

They can, if "läbi" indicates how the object is interacted with, but partitive case indicates the way the action is performed.

While "läbi" is often required with total objects, as sentences would often not make much sense without them, there is no rule that forbids to use them with partial objects if required.

suomi888 wrote:*Negative sentences (I personally think that it doesn't work here, since partial object and completion clash together in terms of meaning. However, someone on Facebook corrected me in these ways: Sentence number 9 and 10. I just want to know why he or she would think that way).

Yes, these words can appear in negative senteces.

suomi888 wrote:*Or like in sentence number 3, where you can use the word "üks" to replace completion helper "läbi".

While I can see where this is coming from and how this makes sense in some cases, I would say that "Lugesin ühe artikli." is an incorrect sentence.

suomi888 wrote:1) Lugesin artiklit. I was reading an article.

Or "I was reading the article" or "I did some reading of an/the article".

suomi888 wrote:2) Lugesin artikleid. I was reading some articles.

Or "I was reading the articles." or "I did some reading of some/the articles.".

suomi888 wrote:3) Lugesin ühe artikli / Lugesin artikli läbi. I read one article.

As mentioned before, this feels wrong to me. I would say "Lugesin artikli läbi.", "Lugesin ühe artikli läbi.", "Lugesin artiklit." or "Lugesin üht(e) artiklit." depending on what exactly I want to say.
I'd say "Lugesin artikli läbi." or "Lugesin selle artikli läbi." refers more or less to a specific article, while "Lugesin ühe artikli läbi." refers to some random article or a single one from a set of many.

suomi888 wrote:6) Ma lugesin artiklid läbi. I read through all articles.

Or "I read the articles all the way through.".

suomi888 wrote:7) Ma ei lugenud artiklit. I didn´t read an article.

Or "I didn't read the article." or "I didn't do any reading of the article.".

suomi888 wrote:8) Ma ei lugenud artikleid. I didn't read some articles.

Or "I didn't read the articles." or "I didn't do any reading of the articles.".

suomi888 wrote:9) Ma ei lugenud artiklit läbi. I didn't read through the article.

Yes. I didn't read it all the way through, even though I may have done some reading of it.

suomi888 wrote:10) Ma ei lugenud artikleid läbi. I didn't read through some articles.

Or "I didn't read through the articles." - I didn't read them all the way through, even though I may have done some reading of them.

suomi888 wrote:11) Loe (üks) artikkel läbi! Read an article through!

"Loe artikkel läbi!" - Read an/the article through!
"Loe üks artikkel läbi!" - Read some random article through! / Read through one article from the set of many!

suomi888 wrote:12) Ma loen artikli läbi. I will read through the article.

Yes. Could be also just an article, though.

suomi888 wrote:13) Loe (need) artiklid läbi! Read (these) articles through!

Yes.

suomi888 wrote:14) Loe artikkel läbi! Read an article!

Again, to me it feels wrong without "läbi".

suomi888 wrote:15) Loe artiklid läbi! Read articles! [/b]

Again, to me it feels wrong without "läbi".

suomi888 wrote:16) Loe artiklit! (rare) Read some parts of the article! (As in sentence like "joo vett" - drink some water.)

More like "Do (some) reading of an/the article!". Doesn't feel very rare to me, though.

suomi888 wrote:17) Ära loe artiklit! Don't read an article!

Or "Don't read the article!" or "Don't do any reading of the article!".

suomi888 wrote:18) Ära loe artikleid! Don't read some articles!

Or "Don't read the articles!" or "Don't do any reading of the articles.".

Milline neist on õige lause ja miks?

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

Alus on alati nimetav või osastav eksistentsiaalses lauses nt. Vaadis on bensiin/bensiini. Hilisõhtul tulevad head mõtted/tuleb häid mõtteid. Kas sul on uued margid/uusi marke? (https://www.eki.ee/books/ekk09/index.php?p=5&p1=2)

Nägin esimest ja neljat lauset Google'is, ja ma pole kindel, kas teine ja kolmas on grammatiliselt õiged?

Aitäh!

suomi888 wrote:Milline neist on õige lause ja miks?

Kasutaksin ise neljandat lauset ("kas sul on probleeme?") mitmuse osastavas käändes.

suomi888 wrote:Kas sul on probleem?

= Do you have a/the problem?

suomi888 wrote:Kas sul on probleemid?

Do you have (the) problems? It still sounds awkward to me though. (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.)

suomi888 wrote:Kas sul on probleemi?

Nope, don't use genitive.

suomi888 wrote:Kas sul on probleeme?

= Do you have (some) problems? Are you having a problem? Are you having problems? This one sounds the most natural to me.

Linguaphile wrote:

suomi888 wrote:Kas sul on probleemi?

Nope, don't use genitive.

Aga osastav kääne? Kas see on võimalik?

suomi888 wrote:

Linguaphile wrote:

suomi888 wrote:Kas sul on probleemi?

Nope, don't use genitive.

Aga osastav kääne? Kas see on võimalik?

See on võimalik.
"Probleemi" võib olla omastavas käändes ainult sellel juhul, kui lausel on midagi muud, nagu "Kas sul on probleemi lahendamiseks aega?" aga selles lauses on sõna "aega" küll osastavas käändes.
Aga eelistan ikka "kas sul on probleeme" ja ei tea täpselt, miks. Ootame, et Ainurakne vastab!