Woods wrote:“An adjective complement is also in the partitive when the subject is an infinitive or a subordinate clause, or when there is no subject.
On ilmeis/tä, että… (It is clear that…)
On parasta lähteä. (It is best to leave.)
Luennolla oli hauska/a. (It was nice at the lecture.)
With some adjectives both nominative and partitive are equally possible as complement cases; of then the nominative is better.
Minun on vaikea(a) tulla. (It is difficult for me to come.)
Oli hauska(a) tutustua. (It was nice to meet you.)
Ei ole helppo(a) päättää. (It is not easy to decide.)”
Now this is where it gets really confusing. All three of the examples in the last paragraph fall in the category of adjective complements followed by infinitive subjects. Didn’t the author just say that in this case the adjective complement is in the partitive? Then he says that “[w]ith some adjectives both nominative and partitive are (…) possible,” but “nominative is better.”
I also don’t quite understand the next paragraph:
“If the subject is plural, the adjective complement must also be in the plural (concord), and is usually in the partitive plural. But the nominative plural is often equally possible. This form [apparently he means the nominative] is obligatory if the subject is a plural invariable word or if the concept referred to by the subject is clearly of limited scope.
A plural adjective complement (…) is generally in the partitive, but it takes the nominative if the subject is an invariable plural or refers to a clearly limited concept.”
So he gives the following examples, where the adjective is in the partitive, but then says the nominative is also possible:
Oletteko ilois/ia? (Are you (pl.) glad?)
Omenat ovat tanskalais/ia. (The apples are Danish.)
Nämä kirjat ovat kalli/ita. (These books are expensive.)
Tulppaanit ovat punais/ia. (The tulips are red.)
He ovat miellyttäviä. (They are pleasant.)
Voileivät ovat hyviä. (The sandwiches are good.)
…and then the ones below, where he says the nominative is obligatory:
Jalat ovat likaiset.
Saappaat ovat pitkät.
Kasvot olivat valkoiset.
Sakset ovat terävät.
Housut ovat harmaat.
In the first group of examples, isn’t it more logical to say:
Tulppaanit ovat punaiset.
Omenat ovat tanskalaiset.
Nämä kirjat ovat kalliit.
Voileivät ovat hyvät.
…so that the adjective is in the same case as the substantive?
In “Oletteko iloisiä?” the partitive sounds fine to me, because there’s no subject, and with “He ovat miellyttäviä” I would rather think whether “he” is an indefinite amount of people (in which case I would use the partitive) or a given number of persons (e.g. five), in which case I would rather use the nominative. Am I wrong?
This “generally”-type of definition that the author uses throughout the book really confuses me. What is “generally?” Should I derive the conclusion that I should always prefer the partitive over the nominative for an adjective complement, except for the cases when the nominative is obligatory, or not really?
Woods wrote:One more thing that seems to be a mistake in the book:
"After other [than numerals] expressions of quality, the partitive singular is used for divisible words and the partitive plural for non-divisible words."
And here are some of the examples:
vähän maitoa (a little milk)
puoli tuntia (half an hour)
kaksi kuppia kylmää teetä (two cups of cold tea)
kaksi kiloa appelsineja
pari kenkiä (a pair of shoes)
joukko ihmisiä (a crowd of people)
I think the author means the opposite of what he just said - I mean, milk and tea are non-divisible words, while oranges, humans and shoes are divisible ones, or am I wrong? And I guess tunti is non-divisible, when one is talking about some part of it.
Woods wrote:But is this form something that is generally said in Finland or are other ways of expressing ‘over the Internet’ preferred? I didn’t find ‘netitse’ in RedFox Sanakirja for example. Also, are there other expressions using the prolative that we omitted?
Woods wrote:Then the author adds that “it can also be used with postpositions” and gives the following examples:
Kissa juoksi aidan al/i/tse. (The cat ran under the fence.)
Hän vetäisi t-paidan päänsä yl/i/tse. ((S)he pulled his/her T-shirt over his/her head.)
talon ta/i/tse (behind the house)
rejän lävitse (through the whole)
I think he means to say that this case is what was used to form certain postpositions or adverbs?
Woods wrote:Also, is -i- generally used everywhere a gap needs to be filled
Woods wrote: I guess ta/i/tse comes from taka, there’s no plural, so the -i- should be just fill?
Woods wrote:Last but not least, are there any other cases (e.g. also used only in a few fixed expressions) that I’m not yet aware of
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests