# "mikä/mitä on" and countability



## Gavril

Päivää,

There was some discussion about the difference between _mikä on_ vs. _mitä on _in this thread. I would like to clarify how (or whether) the choice between these two options is related to the countability of a noun. (I ask because countability is normally a factor in the choice of nominative/partitive for the predicate of _olla_.)

For example,

1) if someone hears the sentence _Pidän tukkakoskelosta_ but has no idea what _tukkakoskelo_ means (not even whether it refers to something countable), then is it possible to say _*Mitä* tukkakoskelo on _if he wants to know what the word means?

2) If a person sees something unfamiliar but countable (e.g. an animal), then he would ask _*Mikä* tämä/tuo on _if he wanted to know what it is. But, what if someone sees an uncountable substance (e.g. snow) for the first time? Would that person still say _Mikä tämä on?_, or could _mitä _be used instead?

Kiitos


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> 1) if someone hears the sentence _Pidän tukkakoskelosta_ but has no idea what _tukkakoskelo_ means (not even whether it refers to something countable), then is it possible to say _*Mitä* tukkakoskelo on _if he wants to know what the word means?



I’d say no. The question would postulate that _tukkakoskelo_ is uncountable. The use of _mikä _would be neutral here, i.e. it would be used when you don’t even know whether _tukkakoskelo _is countable.



> 2) If a person sees something unfamiliar but countable (e.g. an animal), then he would ask _*Mikä* tämä/tuo on _if he wanted to know what it is. But, what if someone sees an uncountable substance (e.g. snow) for the first time? Would that person still say _Mikä tämä on?_, or could _mitä _be used instead?



He would say _Mitä tämä on?_ The use of _mikä_ would imply, in a context like this, that the question is about a specific mass of a substance, not the substance in general.


----------



## Gavril

fennofiili said:


> I’d say no. The question would postulate that _tukkakoskelo_ is uncountable. The use of _mikä _would be neutral here, i.e. it would be used when you don’t even know whether _tukkakoskelo _is countable.



Thanks, I was never completely sure about this point until now.

To extend the question slightly, which pronoun form would you use if you are asking about the definition of something that is not a noun?

E.g.,

[adjective]
A: _Keitto maistui oikein tuimalta._
B: _Mikä/mitä on "tuima"?_

[adverb]
A: _Hän reagoi säyseasti pyyntööni_.
B: _Mitä/Mikä on "säyseästi"?_


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> To extend the question slightly, which pronoun form would you use if you are asking about the definition of something that is not a noun?



I’m somewhat uncertain about this.



> [adjective]
> A: _Keitto maistui oikein tuimalta._
> B: _Mikä/mitä on "tuima"?_
> 
> [adverb]
> A: _Hän reagoi säyseasti pyyntööni_.
> B: _Mitä/Mikä on "säyseästi"?_



I’d say _mitä_, thinking that _mitä on_ means more or less the same as _mitä tarkoittaa_. But someone might use _mikä_, implying that _mikä on_ means _mikä sana on_. But I would say that this is less natural, and I might even take _Mikä on ”tuima”_ as asking what is the thing that you characterize as _tuima_ (perhaps asking, in this context, which soup is referred to).


----------

