Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Moderator: aaakknu

Prantsis
Posts: 280
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Location: France

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2018-09-27, 3:59

Linguaphile wrote:It seems that it should normally be written with an en dash, not a comma, but the example you from Tammsaare had an additional appositional element (Vargamäe noor perenaine) in addition to the left dislocation so that may be the reason for the difference.

Yes, you might be right about the comma (that's beyond my knowledge too). And of course, I've seen this before with dashes. In fact, I think I've always been a bit confused by these strange objects that look like interpolated clauses but don't taste like ones. Whereas with a comma, it just feels like the most natural thing in the world. Well, I think i've just learnt how to use dashes in Estonian.
Still, Tammsaare's use of this construction seems unusual: it only indicates a very ordinary shift of topic. That's very French. (or maybe it's not that unusual? So far I've read mostly contemporary novels, so I can't really tell for the time of Tammsaare)

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2018-09-27, 5:06

Prantsis wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:It seems that it should normally be written with an en dash, not a comma, but the example you from Tammsaare had an additional appositional element (Vargamäe noor perenaine) in addition to the left dislocation so that may be the reason for the difference.

Yes, you might be right about the comma (that's beyond my knowledge too). And of course, I've seen this before with dashes. In fact, I think I've always been a bit confused by these strange objects that look like interpolated clauses but don't taste like ones. Whereas with a comma, it just feels like the most natural thing in the world. Well, I think i've just learnt how to use dashes in Estonian.
Still, Tammsaare's use of this construction seems unusual: it only indicates a very ordinary shift of topic. That's very French. (or maybe it's not that unusual? So far I've read mostly contemporary novels, so I can't really tell for the time of Tammsaare)

So now I will watch for them, but who knows how long it will be before I come across one. I am still unsure of what you mean by "it only indicates a very ordinary shift of topic" or how the one example you cited is different from the other examples, other than what I see as an appositive thrown into the mix. Maybe because English and Estonian don't use this kind of construction as often as French does, I don't see it in the same way. When I hear it in spoken language, whether in English or Estonian, I tend to think of it as either a filler/hesitation or self-correction. That doesn't mean that it is a filler or self-correction, but it does mean that it's not something I've paid much special attention to or tried to learn to do 'properly'. And, obviously, when it is written in literature it is neither of those things.
There are certain authors who use it a lot in English, too, although ironically the only one I can think of right now is actually a tv show rather than a book; the show Star Trek (the one that was on in the 90s I think) used it constantly, as in "This planet that we're on, its gravity is reversed"* or "These aliens that we just welcomed aboard our starship, they have taken over the navigation systems"* and so on. It always struck me as odd because although it is grammatical in English, it's really not that common, so in the tv show it seemed really noticeable to me. Anyway, like you, in Estonian I think I've probably seen it most in Tammsaare's works or something similar. But I'm really not sure.

*Those are not direct quotes. Just like with Tammsaare, I know I've seen/heard this type of construction used there, but can't think of or find any specific examples.

Prantsis
Posts: 280
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Location: France

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2018-09-28, 21:02

Linguaphile wrote:or how the one example you cited is different from the other examples, other than what I see as an appositive thrown into the mix
Yes, they're probably the same thing. But it looks so natural with a comma. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Naava
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 1074
Joined: 2012-01-17, 20:24
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Naava » 2018-10-29, 17:55

"Me ei ole sellistes küsimustes mingit vägikaigast vedanud ja kui nendega läbi rääkida, küllap me leiame siis ka kõige parema lahenduse," lausus Vitsut. [source]

What's the meaning of this -p? Can you add it to anywhere else than to küll?

ükssakslane
Posts: 37
Joined: 2018-10-18, 14:55
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ükssakslane » 2018-10-29, 20:23

Küllap on lihtsalt sünonüüm sõnale 'ilmselt'

Prantsis
Posts: 280
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Location: France

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2018-10-29, 20:46

Naava wrote:What's the meaning of this -p? Can you add it to anywhere else than to küll?

I guess it may come from ep. Sestap too is common. EKSS also has mistap, nõndap, nüüdap, siisap (I'm not sure I've ever seen either of those). And also: mina'p/minap, sina'p/sinap, tema'p/temap, see'p/seep, seda'p/sedap.

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2018-10-30, 0:03

Prantsis wrote:
Naava wrote:What's the meaning of this -p? Can you add it to anywhere else than to küll?

I guess it may come from ep. Sestap too is common. EKSS also has mistap, nõndap, nüüdap, siisap (I'm not sure I've ever seen either of those). And also: mina'p/minap, sina'p/sinap, tema'p/temap, see'p/seep, seda'p/sedap.

It does come from ep. It even has its own entry in EKSS, which says it's a spoken-language form of ep, meaning either "ei" or "just, nimelt" (in other words, see’p = "see just, see nimelt"; tema’p = "just tema"; and so on).
There's also tea'p = "ei tea, kes tea", which I don't think I've heard, but if I heard it in spoken language I'm almost positive I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from teab and I'd therefore get the opposite meaning....

ükssakslane wrote:Küllap on lihtsalt sünonüüm sõnale 'ilmselt'

Jah, aga sel sõnal on kaks tähendust: (a) tõenäoliselt, arvatavasti, nähtavasti, ju (ja siin ka ilmselt) (b) küll, eks, ju.

User avatar
Naava
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 1074
Joined: 2012-01-17, 20:24
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Naava » 2018-11-05, 19:08

Aitäh teile! :)

Linguaphile wrote:There's also tea'p = "ei tea, kes tea", which I don't think I've heard, but if I heard it in spoken language I'm almost positive I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from teab and I'd therefore get the opposite meaning....

Right. I hate it when languages do this. :lol:

ükssakslane
Posts: 37
Joined: 2018-10-18, 14:55
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ükssakslane » 2018-11-05, 21:21

Küllap tunnen küll, aga teised - kunagi ei kuulnud.

ükssakslane
Posts: 37
Joined: 2018-10-18, 14:55
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ükssakslane » 2018-11-11, 18:42

Mida tähendab "sõna sõnaks" nagu näiteks nii:
"Tallinn Tallinnaks, aga tegelikult pole Milde rublaajast saati isegi Tartus käinud"

Nägin alles möödunud nädala jooksul mitu selliseid laused.

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2018-11-11, 20:08

ükssakslane wrote:Mida tähendab "sõna sõnaks" nagu näiteks nii:
"Tallinn Tallinnaks, aga tegelikult pole Milde rublaajast saati isegi Tartus käinud"

Nägin alles möödunud nädala jooksul mitu selliseid laused.


Sõltub kontekstist. Näiteks nali naljaks tähendab ilma naljata ("joking aside" ehk "but seriously").

Nali naljaks, aga insener tahtis tõesti ekskavaatorijuhiks hakata. = But seriously, the engineer really did want to become an excavator operator.

I think it's often dismissive of the first thing, emphasizing how the one that follows is different.
Toit toiduks, aga teenindus oli kohutav! = The food was one thing, but the service was horrible!

I'd probably translate your sentence above as something like "Tallinn is one thing, but during the ruble period Milde didn't even get to go to Tartu." I don't know the full context but I understand it to mean that it's not too important (or maybe not too unusual or surprising) that Milde hadn't gone to Tallinn, but it's quite significant that she didn't go to Tartu.

However, this same construction can also be used in a more literal way:
Vanema jaoks jääb laps lapseks isegi kui ta on 50-aastane.= For a parent a child stays a child even if he's 50 years old.

User avatar
aaakknu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 1179
Joined: 2015-05-10, 12:24
Real Name: Ira
Gender: female
Country: ID Indonesia (Indonesia)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby aaakknu » 2018-11-11, 22:00

Interesting. It's very easy to translate into Ukrainian, because we say it in almost the same way. (Although we do not have translative, we use intrumental instead).
Maybe I've seen the construction before, but never paid attention, because of the obviousness of its meaning (for me).
Здайся на Господа у твоїх справах, і задуми твої здійсняться. (Приповідки 16, 3)
TAC 2018
Sign up for the Broken Translation Game 2018 and Oral Broken Translation Game 2 and Conlang Broken Translation Game 3 and FUBAR Game 2018

User avatar
Naava
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 1074
Joined: 2012-01-17, 20:24
Gender: female
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Naava » 2018-11-11, 22:11

Salajane wrote:Interesting. It's very easy to translate into Ukrainian, because we say it in almost the same way. (But we do not have translative, we use intrumental instead).

Finnish has it too, but we use essive. :D It's as if everyone agreed to use different cases just because.

ükssakslane
Posts: 37
Joined: 2018-10-18, 14:55
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby ükssakslane » 2018-11-13, 21:16

Ja millal...

tuleb kasutada sufiksi ‘-mast’? Kui ma sellest õigesti aru saan, on seda võrreldav saksa ‘-zu-‘-ga. Umbes nii:

Wir müssen Käse mitnehmen - Me peame juust kaasa võtma (Või juustu? Ma kunagi ei tea, millal kasutada genitiiv ja millal mitte)

Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, Käse mitZUnehmen -
Me ei tohi unustada juust kaasa võtMAST.

Samuti paistab seda ka ‘millelegi eest’ kontraktsioon olevat:
Aitäh üles laadimise eest = Aitäh üles laadimast!

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2018-11-14, 1:38

ükssakslane wrote:Ja millal...

tuleb kasutada sufiksi ‘-mast’? Kui ma sellest õigesti aru saan, on seda võrreldav saksa ‘-zu-‘-ga. Umbes nii:

Wir müssen Käse mitnehmen - Me peame juust kaasa võtma (Või juustu? Ma kunagi ei tea, millal kasutada genitiiv ja millal mitte)

Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, Käse mitZUnehmen -
Me ei tohi unustada juust kaasa võtMAST.

Samuti paistab seda ka ‘millelegi eest’ kontraktsioon olevat:
Aitäh üles laadimise eest = Aitäh üles laadimast!

See pole täpselt millegi eest kontraktsioon vaid ma-infinitiivi seestütlev vorm. See väljendab tegevusest väljumist (ta tuli ujumast) jne. Koos verbiga lakkama see väljendab tegevuse lõppemist (ta lakkas söömast).

Aitäh küsimast. = Thank you for asking.
Tänan pakkumast. = Thank you for offering.
Ma tulen filmi vaatamast. = I’m coming from having seen the film.
Ta tuli ujumast. = He came from swimming.
Tulime söömast. = We came from eating.
Ta keeldus söömast. = He refused to eat.
Ta lakkas söömast. = He stopped eating.
Nad keelasid meid küsimustele vastamast. = They forbid us from answering the questions.

Ma arvan, et ma olen lugenud, et mõnikord võib see mingi osastav vorm ka olla, aga ma ei ole kindel. Mul pole näiteid. Võib-olla lauses tere tulemast? Või kas see on ka seestütlevas käändes ma-tegevusnimi vorm? Ma ei tea.

Ärge häbenege küsimast. = Don’t be ashamed to ask.

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2019-01-06, 1:24

Mida tähendab see lause? "Kui sind poleks olemas, siis tuleks sind välja mõelda." Ma saan sõnadest aru, aga lause tähendusest ei saa aru.

Prantsis
Posts: 280
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Location: France

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2019-01-06, 3:24

Linguaphile wrote:Mida tähendab see lause? "Kui sind poleks olemas, siis tuleks sind välja mõelda." Ma saan sõnadest aru, aga lause tähendusest ei saa aru.

"If you didn't exist, someone would have to invent you."
We say that in French too, apparently it comes from Voltaire's sentence "If God didn't exist, someone would have to invent Him." In English I found: you're one of a kind / you're something else / you're a piece of work...

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2019-01-06, 4:38

Prantsis wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:Mida tähendab see lause? "Kui sind poleks olemas, siis tuleks sind välja mõelda." Ma saan sõnadest aru, aga lause tähendusest ei saa aru.

"If you didn't exist, someone would have to invent you."
We say that in French too, apparently it comes from Voltaire's sentence "If God didn't exist, someone would have to invent Him." In English I found: you're one of a kind / you're something else / you're a piece of work...

Aitäh. Kaasteksti polnud, sest ma leidsin selle ühest keeleõpperakendusest. Arvasin, et see peab midagi sellist olema, aga ma ei poled seda Voltaire'i tsitaati kuulnud.
Inglise keeles "you're one of a kind" on tavaliselt kompliment ja "you're a piece of work" on tavaliselt solvav lause.
Kas "kui sind poleks olemas, siis tuleks sind välja mõelda" on siis kompliment või solvang? (Või sõltub konteksist?) Kas see tähendab, et see inimene on tarvis (tuleb sind välja mõelda, sest su olemine on nii vajalik) või vastupidiselt, et see inimene on veider (loodus ei saanudki sind tavalisel viisil teha, tuleb hoopis inimestel sind leiutada)?

Prantsis
Posts: 280
Joined: 2016-11-02, 15:32
Gender: male
Location: France

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Prantsis » 2019-01-06, 6:20

I can speak only for French and assume it's the same in Estonian.
I'd say it indeed depends on the context, but you usually say that to someone you find a bit "veider" (because one of their character traits is excessive, but it may as well be a good character trait). It can be an ironical compliment, or not a compliment at all.
I think both your paraphrases are wrong. It only means: "you're unique, there's no one like you" (so if you didn't exist, you'd need to be invented because replicating someone else wouldn't be an option, the model wouldn't exist.)

Linguaphile
Posts: 2201
Joined: 2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Küsimus eesti keele kohta / Questions about Estonian

Postby Linguaphile » 2019-01-06, 6:56

Aitäh jälle.


Return to “Estonian (Eesti keel)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest