# Small strawberries



## linglab

Hi everybody,

I need to translate the term "small strawberries" into Finnish. This term will appear on the label of a strawberry cheesecake. The client clearly specified that the ingredient in question does not refer to wild strawberries, but simply to strawberries which are smaller than the "normal" ones.

In your opinion could the Finnish term "metsämansikat" be suitable to this context? Is there a more specific term? How would "small strawberries" be literally translated into Finnish?

Thank you in advance for your help!


----------



## AutumnOwl

No, _"mestsämanskat"_ means wild strawberries. You could use _"pienet mansikat"_ - small strawberries.


----------



## fennofiili

AutumnOwl said:


> No, _"mestsämanskat"_ means wild strawberries.



More exactly “metsämansikka”, also known as “ahomansikka”, is a different species, _Fragaria vesca_, as opposite to the commonly cultivated “puutarhamansikka”, also known as “tarhamansikka”, _Fragaria _×_ananassa_. The simple word “mansikka” may refer to both, but mostly the latter. “Metsämansikka” has also been cultivated, and “tarhamansikka” sometimes appears in the wild, and the species interbreed, but still we can say that normally “metsämansikka” and “mansikka” are two different things.

The two species taste rather different, even when you compare them as picked ripe and eaten immediately. “Puutarhamansikka” is often picked when not quite ripe and usually transported a long way before it reaches the customer, whereas “metsämansikka” is typically eaten immediately or very short after picking them up, making the difference even bigger.

However, it is possible that these strawberries are actually cultivated _Fragaria vesca_, possibly_ Fragaria vesca _var. _semperflorens_, called “kuukausimansikka” in Finnish, with longish berries and mild taste. You need more information; just knowing that they are not wild is not enough.



> You could use _"pienet mansikat"_ - small strawberries.



In package labels, the partitive case used to be common, and I still find it more natural to write “pieniä mansikoita”. But it seems that the use of the nominative, such as “pienet mansikat”, has become more common. I find it illogical, as it suggests that the package contains some definite set of strawberries, as if we wrote “The small strawberries” in English. In any case (no pun intended), be consistent: use either the nominative or the partitive for all ingredients in a list.


----------



## linglab

Thank you both! Fennofiili, thank you for your precise answer! 
Which is then the best way to translate "with small strawberries" (according to the correct case declension) in the name of the product?
Thank you again for your useful help!


----------



## Määränpää

linglab said:


> Which is then the best way to translate "with small strawberries" (according to the correct case declension) in the name of the product?


The adessive case is the most common but purists say it's colloquial. 

http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=1791


> Sellaiset svetisismit kuin ”lihapullat perunasoseella” ovat kovin arkisia.


----------



## linglab

Thank you for you answer.
Is "pieniä mansikoilla" correct for translating "with small strawberries" (the complete name of the product would be _Ricotta- ja juustoseos keksipohjalla pieniä mansikoilla ja viinimarjoilla_)?


----------



## Gavril

linglab said:


> Is "pieniä mansikoilla" correct for translating "with small strawberries" (the complete name of the product would be _Ricotta- ja juustoseos keksipohjalla pieniä mansikoilla ja viinimarjoilla_)?



Since there haven't been any responses to this question yet, I am going to offer my opinion (as a non-native speaker).

First of all, _pieniä mansikoilla_ cannot be correct because the adjective _pieni _has to agree in case with the noun: thus one would say _pienillä mansikoilla_. However, I would not suggest using that translation here, because that would create a possibly confusing repetition of words ending in -_lla_: _keksipohjalla pienillä mansikoilla ja viinimarjoilla. _The problem is that -_lla_ may have a different interpretation in the first word (_keksipohja*lla* _= "*on* a cake bottom") than it does in the ones following (_pieni*llä* mansikoi*lla*_ = "*with* small strawberries").

Given this, I would suggest translating the final words as _*pienten mansikoiden ja viinimarjojen kanssa*_ or _*pienten mansikoiden ja viinimarjojen kera*_. I hope that the native speakers will correct these translations if there are any problems with them.


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> First of all, _pieniä mansikoilla_ cannot be correct because the adjective _pieni _has to agree in case with the noun: thus one would say _pienillä mansikoilla_.



Yes indeed. With few exceptions, an adjective attribute takes the same case form as the noun used as the main word.



> However, I would not suggest using that translation here, because that would create a possibly confusing repetition of words ending in -_lla_: _keksipohjalla pienillä mansikoilla ja viinimarjoilla. _The problem is that -_lla_ may have a different interpretation in the first word (_keksipohja*lla* _= "*on* a cake bottom") than it does in the ones following (_pieni*llä* mansikoi*lla*_ = "*with* small strawberries").



Consecutive phrases in the same case form are not ungrammatical, but they are often confusing, especially when the case form has different meanings. Here both adessives could be interpreted as corresponding to “with...”, but as you describe, the first one could also be seen as simple locational use (something being on something, on the top of something). Adding just “ja” (or maybe “sekä”) might suggest the first interpretation and thereby reduce the risk of confusion: “_keksipohjalla ja pienillä mansikoilla ja viinimarjoilla_”_._

However, as Määränpää describes, such use of the adessive has been frowned upon by language authorities and guides. It is very common, though, especially in contexts like food descriptions in packages and menus. The new (2015) _Kielitoimiston kielioppiopas_, which is generally more permissive (and thereby vague) than older guides, does not seem to take a strong position against such use. It just mentions (on p. 142) that expressions like “lohta sitruunalla” may be ambiguous, meaning “salmon with lemon” or “salmon on lemon”. If you ask me, this is artificial, since ambiguities are almost always easily resolved by the meaning of the context.

The problem is that all alternatives have drawbacks. There just isn’t a generally adequate way to translate “with ...” when it means “accompanied with ... as an ingredient”.



> Given this, I would suggest translating the final words as _*pienten mansikoiden ja viinimarjojen kanssa*_ or _*pienten mansikoiden ja viinimarjojen kera*_.



In the most puristic approach, described e.g. in Terho Itkonen’s “Uusi kieliopas”, “kanssa” should only be used in adverbial constructs of the form “A:n kanssa”, meaning “A together with the subject of the clause”, so that A and the subject are more or less on an equal basis. So we can say “Hän saapui vaimonsa kanssa” (He arrived with his wife), but not “Hän tuli taskulampun kanssa” (He came with a flashlight) – a purist would instead say “Hän tuli taskulamppu mukanaan”. Even less would a purist accept “Hän osti kahvin sokerilla” (He bought a coffee with sugar), where the adessive is not an adverbial at all but an attribute of “kahvin”. (The word “kera” sounds artificial in normal prose and is no better than “kanssa”; they are rather synonymous.)

So what can we do? The practical approach is to follow the common practice and use the adessive. Purists mostly recommend expressions with “ja”, e.g. “Hän osti kahvin ja sokerin”, but the problem is that they may sound odd. They sound like the two parts are more or less in a similar role, instead of the second one being an add-on. There is no formal rule for this, but I think it’s how people often think. Besides, “Hän osti kahvin ja sokerin” may sound like purchasing two things, rather than one product consisting of a major part and an add-on ingredient.

If it is possible to rewrite the expression as a natural sentence, that could be the best option. For example: “Ricotta- ja juustoseos, jossa on pieniä mansikoita ja viinimarjoja ja jonka alla on keksipohja”. Instead of “viinimarjoja”, one can use “herukoita”.


----------



## Gavril

fennofiili said:


> In the most puristic approach, described e.g. in Terho Itkonen’s “Uusi kieliopas”, “kanssa” should only be used in adverbial constructs of the form “A:n kanssa”, meaning “A together with the subject of the clause”, so that A and the subject are more or less on an equal basis. So we can say “Hän saapui vaimonsa kanssa” (He arrived with his wife), but not “Hän tuli taskulampun kanssa” (He came with a flashlight) – a purist would instead say “Hän tuli taskulamppu mukanaan”. Even less would a purist accept “Hän osti kahvin sokerilla” (He bought a coffee with sugar), where the adessive is not an adverbial at all but an attribute of “kahvin”.
> (The word “kera” sounds artificial in normal prose and is no better than “kanssa”; they are rather synonymous.)



Hmm, I know that_ kera_ is not a very common word in modern-day writing, but I do see it every now and then in contexts like _Niele tabletti veden kera_ "Swallow the tablet with water".

The Kielitoimiston sanakirja dictionary says



> _kera_
> *2.* ruokalistoissa, ilmaistaessa ruoan lisäkettä t. kastiketta. _Lehtipihvi maustevoin kera. Nakit perunasoseen kera _nakit ja perunasose_._



So, as long as _kera _is a word speakers will recognize, then perhaps the clearest way (even if not the most idiomatic way) of translating the phrase in question would be "_Ricotta- ja juustoseos keksipohjalla pienten mansikoiden ja viinimarjojen kera"_?

I am just making this suggestion in case the original poster is not able to use a complete sentence (as you suggested at the end of your post) in the translation.


----------



## linglab

Many thanks for the explanation and for your suggestions!


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> So, as long as _kera _is a word speakers will recognize, then perhaps the clearest way (even if not the most idiomatic way) of translating the phrase in question would be "_Ricotta- ja juustoseos keksipohjalla pienten mansikoiden ja viinimarjojen kera"_?



It’s one possibility, and “kera” is recognized by native speakers, but as a literary word. In a product package, that’s probably OK, though I’m not sure how “kera” would be better than “kanssa”. Yet, using “A B:n kera” in a restaurant menu would put the customers in a somewhat awkward position: since “kera” is hardly used in spoken language, they would either need to rephrase the name or to speak literary language when ordering. I would find it clumsy to order “lohta sienikastikkeen kera”.


----------

