Prantsis wrote:A question about the double impersonal mark in compound tenses. That is, the (erroneous) use of ollakse (or oldi etc.) plus tud participle, instead of on + tud or ollakse + nud. To me it's sort of like saying be instead of have in English ("one is V-ed" instead of "one has V-ed"), and I find it a little strange, especially with transitive verbs. Eesti keele käsiraamat's authors even bothered to write a paragraph about the matter that clearly disapproves this use. Which let think it's probably a common 'mistake' in spoken language. (Is it?)
Prantsis wrote:So I wonder, is it a mistake at all? Does it sound like one to you in the examples above? Are EKKR's grammarians too categorical somehow?
Linguaphile wrote: But for myself, if my opinion is worth anything at all, of the three types I described above I would say the first type of sentence sounds fine, the second type of sentence sounds odd to me and the third type sounds okay, even though I can understand in theory that the third type is just as incorrect as the second type.
ainurakne wrote:The first two tables on that page of Eesti keele käsiraamat seem sound and logical. For the third one - at first I thought: although the examples in the false-column sound a bit odd, I would probably do the same mistake too.
Prantsis wrote:But then... are you saying that my second example sentence immediately struck you as half correct? That "oldi mõeldud" sounds natural (you could "do the same mistake too") but "jõudu oldi ammutatud" does not?
Prantsis wrote:Personaly, I think I would never make this mistake. And the same goes for many mistakes Eesti keele käsiraamat (which has been thought for natives) deals with: it would never have occured to me that one could make them. I make different ones.)
Prantsis wrote:As far as I can understand your English translation, I think you understood the sentence correctly, except for "nii mõnelgi ajaloolisel pöördepunktil" that has a plural meaning, something like "at more than one historical turning point/at many historical turning points".
Naava wrote:But after reading Linguaphile's analysis, I started to think it might be the same thing we have in Finnish: it's called double passive here, and just like in Estonian, we're taught it's wrong in written language. I know it's a bit offtopic but IMO it's interesting it's something people do in both languages.
Naava wrote:But after reading Linguaphile's analysis, I started to think it might be the same thing we have in Finnish: it's called double passive here, and just like in Estonian, we're taught it's wrong in written language.
Linguaphile wrote:It's making me wonder who this tarkade sõnadega kirjanik is, actually.
If you hadn't underlined any words, I would probably hadn't noticed anything.Prantsis wrote:But then... are you saying that my second example sentence immediately struck you as half correct? That "oldi mõeldud" sounds natural (you could "do the same mistake too") but "jõudu oldi ammutatud" does not?
Yes, except we may never learn most of the rules. I have never read Eesti keele käsiraamat from start to finish nor have I ever had to. In school we maybe only explicitly learned a fraction of all the rules that are written there, basing our skills on experience and gut feeling mostly. Which means that if our experience is based on wrong usage of language, we naturally make the same mistakes too.Linguaphile wrote:I think that's nearly always the case with native versus non-native speakers in any language: we do make different mistakes. Along with all the mistakes non-native speakers make that native speakers never would, there are always a few things that are the other way around: things that non-native speakers learn correctly from the beginning which native speakers struggle with, because non-native speakers are exposed to them through grammatical rules from the beginning, while native speakers are exposed to them first through making their own generalizations as children, and internalize those generalization or misconceptions before learning the rules. I suppose that also has a lot to do with why languages change over time: if enough people have internalized features that don't follow the rules, and use those features, eventually they will become the new rules.
ainurakne wrote:But I can't put a finger on what exactly causes this, except that it must be gut feeling.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests