"Like" in Estonian

[france-eesti]

Tere õhtust,

first question here

How can I manage with the "like" verb ?
There is this song "Sa mulle ei meeldi" which means "I don't like you".
So I guessed you could say "I like you" by "Sa mulle meeldi", quite simply as "ei" means no
But Google trad says meeldi means disgust

And I also know "Ma armastan sind" but for "I love you".

So how do I basically say "I like beer" ?

õlu mulle meeldi ?
or something like this ?

and if I say "ma armastan õlu" for "I love beer", what case shall I use for "õlu" ? partitive or genitive or... ?
Suur aitäh !

[Allekanger]

Tere!

I can't help you with all of it, but since sa is the nominative, meeldi would take a -d at the end: sa mulle meeldid, which in Google Translate gives 'I like you'. Not sure though, I've only just begun learning.

[sergejsibilev]

Tere õhtust,

first question here

How can I manage with the "like" verb ?
There is this song "Sa mulle ei meeldi" which means "I don't like you".
So I guessed you could say "I like you" by "Sa mulle meeldi", quite simply as "ei" means no
But Google trad says meeldi means disgust

And I also know "Ma armastan sind" but for "I love you".

So how do I basically say "I like beer" ?

õlu mulle meeldi ?
or something like this ?

and if I say "ma armastan õlu" for "I love beer", what case shall I use for "õlu" ? partitive or genitive or... ?
Suur aitäh !

1)Sa meeldid mulle

2)I like beer = Mulle meeldib õlu

3)Armastama, tahtma, kallistama jne + partitive (always). I love beer = Ma armastan õlut.

[ainurakne]

In Estonian, the verb "meeldima" describes the activity that is done by the one that is being liked (and not like in English, where the liking is "done" by the one that likes something or someone).

So, indeed the verb is conjugated according to the person, that is being liked:
"Ma meeldin sulle." (you like me)
"Sa meeldid mulle." (I like you)
etc...

So, the one that is being liked is the subject, and the one that likes, uses allative case (to, onto). Which means that the literal translation of for example "Sa meeldid mulle." is you are being likable to me.

"ei meeldi" is a negative verb, that's why it doesn't have a personal ending, it's just the verb stem.
In Estonian, negative verbs are the same for all persons.

Usually in the most neutral sentences (especially the ones that are short), you put "the liker" first, then the verb, and then the thing or person that is being liked (although you can often rearrange the words pretty freely):
Mulle meeldib õlu. I like beer
Mulle meeldib joosta/jooksmine. I like to run / running
Mulle meeldivad koerad. I like dogs
etc...

But when using personal pronouns (especially other than the 3rd person), the sentence is usually rearranged so that the subject is in the first position (like the ones above: Ma meeldin sulle., etc...)

---

Partitive is mostly used for the object when you are talking about something that is kind of like a process. You use genitive (or actually accusative) if the activity is finite and has a definite result.

So, you say "Ma armastan sind." or "Ma armastan õlut." and put the object in partitive case.

But, in some cases you can also use accusative (genitive in this case), for example:
"Ma armastan su surnuks." - I will love you to death (I will kill you by loving you)

[france-eesti]

Thank you so much for that explanation !
Actually, the "meeldina" verb may not have a translation in English but it has in French.
And with the same construction => the thing that is liked.

La bière me plaît => will be exactly "mulle meeldib õlu"
As "la bière" => õlu
me => mulle
plaît => meeldib

Oh and sure I had read about "ei" removing the ending of the following verb - it just skipped my mind. Can't get used to it

and is genitive used as accusative when it is definite ? So if you say "I want a dog", will you just use genitive ?
ma tähan koerat

what about when it is "virtual", an idea...
"I love music" => ma armastan muusikat... partitive or genitive ?
(sorry - French has no declension)
Aitäh & merci

[ainurakne]

Oh and sure I had read about "ei" removing the ending of the following verb - it just skipped my mind. Can't get used to it

"ei" removes the ending of the following verb because "ei" used to conjugate itself (like "en", "et", "ei", "emme", "ette" and "eivät" in modern Finnish; or the remnant "ep" (3rd person singular) in dialectal Estonian; also the contraction "pole" (isn't) = "ep" + "ole").
I have also read that in Proto-Finnic, "ei" used to conjugate in both present and past tense (and the following verb used a special connegative form: "-k" added to the stem). So, even more earlier, "ei" could have been a full-blown verb.

and is genitive used as accusative when it is definite ? So if you say "I want a dog", will you just use genitive ?
ma tähan koerat

Accusative is more like a separate case (although it hasn't been brought out as a separate case in Estonian grammar and case tables) which just happens to sometimes look like genitive, and sometimes like nominative:
"ostsin koera" (I bought a/the dog) <- genitive
"ostsin koerad" (I bought dogs) <- plural object: nominative
"osta koer!" (buy a dog!) <- imperative mood: nominative
(... and there are some more rules how to choose between genitive and nominative ...)

Anyway, in "(ma) tahan koera", "koera" is partitive, as wanting something is a "process".

NB: in writing, genitive "koera" and partitive "koera" look the same, but they are actually pronounced differently. Genitive "koera" is pronounced "regularly", but in partitive "koera" the first syllable is overlong - this is something that is pretty hard to explain, you have to hear it yourself.

what about when it is "virtual", an idea...
"I love music" => ma armastan muusikat... partitive or genitive ?

Just generally loving something (and not having some kind of definitive end result) is always a "process", so in "(ma) armastan muusikat", "muusikat" is partitive.
(genitive of "muusika" is also "muusika")

[Naava]

I have also read that in Proto-Finnic, "ei" used to conjugate in both present and past tense (and the following verb used a special connegative form: "-k" added to the stem). So, even more earlier, "ei" could have been a full-blown verb.

(Sorry for interupting your Q&A!) But do you happen to remember how the past tense looked like? Ein, eit, eii? Or eitin? What. Looks funny in either way.

[ainurakne]

The place where I read it was of course Wikipedia (scroll down a bit until you reach to Verbs -> Negative verb). Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about how it could have looked like.

But it got me interested, so I looked further. It is mentioned there that the past form is still alive in South Estonian dialects. I looked it up in Võro, and in there the present form is "ei", the past form is "es" and the following verb is the same in both cases (no past participle):

• pres: ei tule (tule ei ) (tulõ-iq )
• past: es tule

But in Võro there is also no conjugation according to the person, just like there isn't in Estonian.


Luckily, I finally found this: http://www.hum.uit.no/a/trond/uralsknegpret.pdf
I haven't read it through yet, just skimmed it, but according to that the past was indicated by -si-. An example using modern Finnish word-forms:

• minä tulen - minä en tule (pres.)
  isä tulee - isä ei tule
• minä tulin - minä esin tule (past)
  isä tuli - isä esi tule
• minä tullut - minä en tullut (perf.)
  isä tullut - isä ei tullut

[suruvaippa]

Actually, the "meeldima" verb may not have a translation in English but it has in French.

I'd say that meeldima translates to English reasonably well as "to appeal to", even if it's not used in this context as much as "like".

[Naava]

Thanks for the link, ainurakne! But I'm wondering why it's esi and not eti. Weren't past tense ti-sequences part of the ti -> si -change? Or is it just a hypothesis how it would look like if it had survived in modern Finnish?

[france-eesti]

Merci beaucoup, thank you very much to all of you for those kind and patient pieces of explanation !
I will write them on my Estonian notebook hehe (yes, I do have one !)
Then I try to write something correct (mostly for myself)... It is very complicated yet interesting and I didn't know at all about "ei" being a verb by itself ! But I couldn't study a lot too

Don't worry, I think I can avoid to bother you with the future tense, the "to have" as (mul on - sul on, etc...) and no he/she... I'll carry on and be back later !

Suur, suur aitäh

[ainurakne]

I'd say that meeldima translates to English reasonably well as "to appeal to", even if it's not used in this context as much as "like".

Indeed. It didn't even cross my mind.

Thanks for the link, ainurakne! But I'm wondering why it's esi and not eti. Weren't past tense ti-sequences part of the ti -> si -change? Or is it just a hypothesis how it would look like if it had survived in modern Finnish?

I'm not sure. Wasn't ti already at least ci by that time?

..., I think I can avoid to bother you with the future tense, ...

Yeah, I think I'm not very good at the future tense of Estonian.

[Naava]

I'm not sure. Wasn't ti already at least ci by that time?

I guess it depends on how old that imperfect 'ei' is, and when ti changed into ci. I tried to google but didn't find anything more than that it changed "somewhere during Proto-Finnic time". Well, maybe it doesn't really matter if it's eti or esi.

-- and no he/she...

Meanwhile my father was totally surprised and confused when I told him that English has both he and she.

[ainurakne]

Yeah, the examples are definitely written in "modern" Finnish (as is also stated in the PDF document). Otherwise they would have been something like this:

• Isä tuleβi (or tulepi).
• Isä eβi (or epi) tulek.

So the past was probably also:

• Isä eti (or eci) tulek.

At least at first...

But I also think that eti saw the time when it became esi. Because in Võro the past ei is es, but the negated verb uses connegative form instead of past participle. So, I think that by the time the negative ei disappeared, the ti was already si.

EDIT: I think I may have been wrong about the "eβi". It seems that the 3rd person conjugational endings -βi and -βat were bolted on later. Looking at the inflection table of tuldak, there seems that the endless form "tuli" was used in parallel even for the present tense.
So, I guess present tense "ei" may have been just "ei".

[isusbellus]

This is confusing as ****

[france-eesti]

Tere, sorry to be back on this old thread... I have a question
Is there such thing as subjunctive in Estonian?

For example, how would you express "She wants me to eat this apple"
What tense would you use with "eat"?
I wonder if it's like Lithuanian (subjunctive) or Hungarian (one tense is at the same time subjunctive and imperative) or English (no subjunctive)...

Anyway, thanks for your help! This is quite a "dummy" question but I am pretty curious
Aitäh!

[ainurakne]

No, there is no subjunctive in Estonian.

In case of the example sentence, I would use "et" (I think this is called subordinating that in English) + conditional mood: "Ta tahab, et ma selle õuna (ära) sööksin." (she wants that I would eat this apple)

Although, indicative mood doesn't seem to sound wrong either: "Ta tahab, et ma selle õuna (ära) söön." (she wants that I eat this apple)

(I'm assuming that you wanted finished action here)


Additionally, some verbs also allow da-infinitive without "et". For example "paluma" (to ask, to beg) and "käskima" (to command, to order):
"Ta palub mul selle õuna (ära) süüa." (she asks me to eat this apple)
"Ta käsib mul selle õuna (ära) süüa." (she orders me to eat this apple)

[france-eesti]

Many thanks Ainurakne

[ainurakne]

Võta heaks!

[france-eesti]

Tere!
I know this is quite a stupid question so I thought I'd put it on my thread, instead of polluting another good thread
This is about history actually. I'd like to know, if in summer 1990, Estonian (Latvian, Lithuanian...) citizens were allowed to travel freely everywhere, for example to Germany or somewhere... ? I know The Wall had Fallen but I'm not sure, that in 1990, everything was "re-open"...

I've just finished watching a 6 episode long documentary about the falling of communism and it wasn't very explicit over the subject (it focused on Lithuania as the first state to have claimed its independance, but yet, it didn't give many détails about freedom for populations).

Thank you for your help and sorry for that stupid question