# plural subjects of transitive clauses



## Gavril

Hyvää lauantaiiltaa (meilläpäin on vielä aamu),


I know that the nominative plural (as opposed to the partitive) has to be used for the subject of a transitive clause, whether the subject is indefinite or definite:

A) _*Varkaat* varastivat hopeat kodista viime viikolla. _

As I understand it, this could mean either

"Thieves [indefinite] stole the silverware from the house last week."
or
"The thieves [definite] stole the silverware from the house last week."

If you wanted to, though, you could alter the structure and wording of the first sentence to make it clearer that the subject is indefinite:

B) Kotiini tuli varkaita, jotka varastivat hopeat. "Thieves came to my house and stole the silverware."

Here, if I'm not mistaken, _varkaita _can only be interpreted as indefinite (= new information).


My question is, what would motivate the choice of a sentence like *A*, where the subject could (without further context) be definite or indefinite, versus a sentence like *B*, where the subject is clearly indefinite?

For example, what would be a possible context where sentence *A* above would be preferable, and what would be a context where sentence *B* is the better option?


Kiitos!


----------



## Määränpää

> Hyvää lauantai-iltaa!



I'm not able to answer your question, but here's a hypothesis I thought of:

The nominative plural is used for indefinite subjects when the subjects do something that _can be expected from members of a certain group_.

Varkaat [indefinite/definite] varastivat hopeat kodista.
Lääkärit [indefinite/definite] pitivät minua luulosairaana.

 Lääkärit [indefinite] varastivat hopeat kodista. (?) [Maybe in a headline, but not in the middle of text.]
 Varkaat [indefinite] pitivät minua luulosairaana. (?)

Lääkärit [definite] varastivat hopeat kodista.
Varkaat [definite] pitivät minua luulosairaana.


----------



## akana

An interesting hypothesis!


----------



## Määränpää

Määränpää said:


> The nominative plural is used for indefinite subjects when the subjects do something that _can be expected from members of a certain group_.



This might be obvious but I'd like to add that using it can reveal the speaker's own prejudice.


----------



## Gavril

Päivää Määränpää,



Määränpää said:


> I'm not able to answer your question, but here's a hypothesis I thought of:
> 
> The nominative plural is used for indefinite subjects when the subjects do something that _can be expected from members of a certain group_.
> 
> Varkaat [indefinite/definite] varastivat hopeat kodista.
> Lääkärit [indefinite/definite] pitivät minua luulosairaana.
> 
> Lääkärit [indefinite] varastivat hopeat kodista. (?) [Maybe in a headline, but not in the middle of text.]



It's interesting that you mention this, because news headlines are the main contexts where I recall seeing the _-t _plural (_varkaat, lääkärit_) used with an indefinite meaning.

Do you think that this pattern (where the subject is not "expected") can apply at the beginning of any new topic or narrative, not just in a headline?

For example, does the following example sound acceptable?

_"Kuulitkohan, että tuulitakkiin pukeutuneet miehet ryöstivät eilen elintarvikeliikkeen Tehtaankadulla?", kysyi Pirjo käydessään kananleivän kimppuun._


----------



## Määränpää

Gavril said:


> _"Kuulitkohan, että tuulitakkiin pukeutuneet miehet ryöstivät eilen elintarvikeliikkeen Tehtaankadulla?", kysyi Pirjo käydessään kanaleivän _[the bread part of the sandwich doesn't come from the chicken]_ kimppuun._



The example sounds acceptable. I hadn't thought about complex noun phrases yet.

But were Pirjo to say _"_[ethnicity]_ ryöstivät"_, she would actually blame _the _entire group, so in a way the subject would be definite. (Writers who do it tend to be writing anonymously...)


----------



## Määränpää

In headlines, it's possible to see expressions that could never be used in the middle of text, such as _"Miehet _[indefinite]_ huijasivat Sampo Pankkia"_.  Because it's a headline, it's clear that 50% of humanity are not  blamed. (However, using ethnicities this way would sound unfriendly even  in a headline.)

In normal text, I would ask _"Kuulitko, että *jotkut* _(or_ *eräät*/*yhdet*_, if I knew them)_ miehet huijasivat..."_


----------



## Gavril

Since verbs like _ryöstää _and _varastaa _have somewhat "loaded" connotations, let's try more neutral examples:


_Kävelin Alpinkatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, kun ihmiset pysäyttivät minut ja kysyivät minulta tietä Ruskeasuohon.
_
_Pyöräillessäni Harjulla älypuhelimeni putoasi taskusta, mutta rähjäiset nuoret löysivät ja palauttivat sen minulle._


Do these sound OK?


----------



## Määränpää

Gavril said:


> _Kävelin Alppikatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, kun ihmiset pysäyttivät minut ja kysyivät minulta tietä Ruskeasuolle._



To me, _ihmiset_ sounds wrong here. Second opinion, other Finns? 

This would be more acceptable: _Kun kävelin Alppikatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, ihmiset pysäyttivät minut monta kertaa __ja kysyivät minulta tietä jonnekin _[=this happened several times with different people]. In this sentence, _ihmiset_ is more generalizing. I think it could refer to everyone who was on the street, even to those who didn't stop the speaker.

This would also be acceptable: _Kävelin Alppikatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, kun poliisit pysäyttivät minut._ In this sentence, _poliisit_ are doing something that police officers typically do.


----------



## kirahvi

To me, _ihmiset_ sounds fine. I might say _jotkut ihmiset_ in that context myself.


----------



## Hakro

I agree with Määränpää. 

I could never say "kun ihmiset pysäyttivät minut" without defining the number or the type of the people who stopped me. I'd say "kun _eräät / muutamat / jotkut / maalaisilta näyttävät / mustiin pukeutuneet_ ihmiset pysäyttivät minut".


----------



## akana

Could you just say _jotkut_, as is sometimes done with joku?
"_Kun kävelin Alpinkatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, *jotkut pysäyttivät *minut..."

_Compare to:_
"__Kun kävelin Alpinkatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, *joku pysäytti *minut..._


----------



## Hakro

akana said:


> Could you just say _jotkut_, as is sometimes done with joku?
> "_Kun kävelin Alpinkatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, *jotkut pysäyttivät *minut..." _It's OK but it gives me the idea that different people stopped me several times.
> Compare to:_
> "__Kun kävelin Alpinkatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, *joku pysäytti *minut..._


In fact, we seldom use the word _ihminen_ in contexts like this.


----------



## Gavril

I added another example sentence to message #8 just as Määränpää was responding:



> _Pyöräillessäni Harjulla älypuhelimeni putosi taskusta, mutta rähjäiset nuoret löysivät ja palauttivat sen minulle._


Is this sentence any more acceptable than the other sentence (with _ihmiset_)?



Määränpää said:


> To me, _ihmiset _sounds wrong here. Second opinion, other Finns?
> 
> This would be more acceptable: _Kun kävelin Alppikatua etsimässä suosikkileipomoani, ihmiset pysäyttivät minut monta kertaa ja kysyivät minulta tietä jonnekin_ [=this happened several times with different people]. In this sentence, _ihmiset_ is more generalizing. I think it could refer to everyone who was on the street, even to those who didn't stop the speaker.



In what sense could the subject of "Ihmiset pysäyttivät minut monta kertaa" refer to people who didn't stop the speaker?

(I can think of a possible answer to this question, but I want to hear from the native speakers first.)


----------



## Määränpää

Gavril said:


> In what sense could the subject of "Ihmiset  pysäyttivät minut monta kertaa" refer to people who didn't stop the  speaker?
> 
> (I can think of a possible answer to this question, but I want to hear from the native speakers first.)



I meant that in the speaker's mind, the people who were on the street are represented by those of them who did something noticeable (stopped him).
Remember that this is not something I'm sure of! I'm just making up ideas. Often _ihmiset_ is very vague and can be replaced by a passive verb.



> _Pyöräillessäni Harjulla älypuhelimeni putosi taskusta, mutta rähjäiset nuoret löysivät ja palauttivat sen minulle._



I'm  sorry but this sentence is so imaginary that I almost can't test its  syntax. Why would anyone criticize so harshly the appearance of someone  who helped them? Anyway, I think _rähjäiset nuoret_ and _kauniisti pukeutuneet nuoret_ both sound wrong.

The only modifiers that sound acceptable are related to the context: _avuliaat nuoret_ (praising their helpfulness), _paikalliset nuoret_ (explaining why they were there)... Maybe you could say _goottinuoret _or _hopparinuoret _to prove to someone that subcultures aren't dangerous.


----------



## Gavril

Määränpää said:


> I meant that in the speaker's mind, the people who were on the street are represented by those of them who did something noticeable (stopped him).
> Remember that this is not something I'm sure of! I'm just making up ideas.



But you're also drawing on your experience/intuitions as a Finnish speaker, right?



> I'm  sorry but this sentence is so imaginary that I almost can't test its  syntax. Why would anyone criticize so harshly the appearance of someone  who helped them?


 
Sorry for the word choice -- I didn't realize that _rähjäinen _was necessarily a mean/critical adjective. WSOY translates _rähjäinen_ as "ragged", which is often used critically in English, but can also be used in a more neutral or sympathetic sense (e.g., if I said "a poor, raggedly-dressed man", I'm not necessarily criticizing the man for being poor and ragged).



> Anyway, I think _rähjäiset nuoret_ and _kauniisti pukeutuneet nuoret_ both sound wrong.
> 
> The only modifiers that sound acceptable are related to the context: _avuliaat nuoret_, _paikalliset nuoret_...



Since you said (message #6) that it sounds acceptable to say,
_
Tuulitakkiin pukeutuneet miehet ryöstivät elintarvikeliikkeen 
_
did it seem to you that the description "tuulitakkiin pukeutuneet" fits the context of the above sentence, in the same sense that "avuliaat/paikalliset nuoret" fits the context of the other sentence?


----------



## Määränpää

Gavril said:


> Since you said (message #6) that it sounds acceptable to say,
> _
> Tuulitakkiin pukeutuneet miehet ryöstivät elintarvikeliikkeen
> _
> did it seem to you that the description "tuulitakkiin pukeutuneet" fits the context of the above sentence, in the same sense that "avuliaat/paikalliset nuoret" fits the context of the other sentence?



I guess the appearance of robbers seems contextually relevant in the context of a robbery. Maybe because eyewitnesses are still needed, or because the disguise was part of the plan.


----------

