# partitive as subject of a sentence



## Gavril

Would any of the sentences below be acceptable in Finnish? Also, does the word order make any difference in whether or not they are acceptable?

_Läikkynyttä maitoa oli lattialla.
Lattialla oli läikkynyttä maitoa.

Suolaa on muka hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle.
Hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle on muka suolaa.

Kolikkoita oli pöydällä.
Pöydällä oli kolikkoita.

Vertä valui haavastaan.
Haavastaan valui vertä._

Kiitos


----------



## sammio

Gavril said:


> _Läikkynyttä maitoa oli lattialla.
> Lattialla oli läikkynyttä maitoa._



These two are completely right. The only difference is which information you are emphasizing. In the first one it's the spilled milk and in the latter the floor. The difference is rather subtle though, the emphasis isn't big.


Gavril said:


> _Suolaa on muka hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle.
> Hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle on muka suolaa._



I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say with these sentences, maybe "Salt is said to be a good cure for a sore throat."? In that case the right translation would be _Suola on kuulemma hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle. / Hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle on kuulemma suola._ But if that wasn't the case then just leave _muka_ out, because I can't figure out what else you could have been trying to say with it. And _suola_ should be in the nominative so this wasn't really a good example of _suola_ in the partitive. _Käytän suolaa ruuassa._ There's one. 

Here's the same thing with the information emphasis, things said first are the one's being emphasized.


Gavril said:


> _Kolikkoita oli pöydällä.
> Pöydällä oli kolikkoita._



Otherwise right, but pay attention to the consonant gradation. So one k falls out, k_olikkoita_ -> _kolikoita_.





Gavril said:


> _Vertä valui haavastaan.
> Haavastaan valui vertä._



Is the translation here "Blood was running out of the wound."? In that case it should be just _Verta valui haavasta._ / _Haavasta valui verta._ But if you want to say "Blood was running out of his/her wound" it would be _Verta valui hänen haavastaan._ / _Hänen haavastaan valui verta._


----------



## Gavril

sammio said:


> I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say with these sentences, maybe "Salt is said to be a good cure for a sore throat."?



I meant to say, "*Some* salt is said to be a good cure for a sore throat" -- i.e., some indeterminate amount of salt. Would you say that the following two sentences can be contrasted semantically, or is only the first sentence acceptable?

1. _Suola on kuulemma hyvä hoitkokeino kurkkukivulle._

"Salt is a supposedly a good cure for a sore throat." (In this case, I'm referring to salt as a substance in general, without specifying the quantity involved.)


2. _Suolaa on kuulemma hyvä hoitkokeino kurkkukivulle._

"Some salt is supposedly a good cure for a sore throat." (Here, I'm trying to emphasize that I don't know how much salt is needed, that the quantity of salt is indeterminate.)


----------



## DrWatson

Gavril said:


> Would you say that the following two sentences can be contrasted semantically, or is only the first sentence acceptable?
> 
> 1. _Suola on kuulemma hyvä hoitkokeino kurkkukivulle._  (or _hoitokeino kurkkukipuun_, which I prefer)
> 2. _Suolaa on kuulemma hyvä hoitokeino kurkkukivulle._


Only the first sentence is correct. I would say this has something to with the type of the sentence we're dealing with. All of your examples are existential sentences (eksistentiaalilause) except this one. I.e. you can say _Vettä on lasissa_ ('Some water is in the glass'), but you can't say _*Vettä on hyvää_, only _Vesi on hyvää_ is acceptable.


----------



## Gavril

DrWatson said:


> Only the first sentence is correct. I would say this has something to with the type of the sentence we're dealing with. All of your examples are existential sentences (eksistentiaalilause) except this one. I.e. you can say _Vettä on lasissa_ ('Some water is in the glass'), but you can't say _*Vettä on hyvää_, only _Vesi on hyvää_ is acceptable.



Does the word order make a difference? For example, what about the following?

_Hyvä hoitkokeino kurkkukivulle on kuulemma suolaa._

"One good treatment for a sore throat is, supposedly, some salt."


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> Does the word order make a difference? For example, what about the following?
> 
> _Hyvä *hoitokeino* kurkkukivulle on kuulemma suolaa._


No difference. _Suola_ is correct. I don't like _kurkkukivu*lle*_. I would prefer: _Hyvä/tehokas kurkkukivun hoitokeino on suola._ In fact, I don't think I'd use the word _hoitokeino._ I don't mean there's anything wrong with it. I would just express the idea using other words: _Suola parantaa kurkkukivun nopeasti/tehokkaasti._


----------



## Gavril

I'd appreciate it if you could evaluate three more examples -- would these be good Finnish?


_Koelasista läikkynyttä happoa poltti minun kättäni._

_Vuorta alas vyörynyttä liejua peitti koko mäenrinteen._

_Pudonneita tiilejä teki lommoja autoon.


_Kiitos


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Unfortunately they all sound rather bad even though they are perfectly understandable.  My suggestions:

_Koelasista / Koeputkesta läikkynyt happo poltti [minun] kättäni.
Vuorta / Vuorelta alas vyörynyt lieju peitti koko mäenrinteen.
Putoavat / Pudonneet tiilet tekivät lommoja autoon.
_


----------



## sakvaka

*Partial subjects + transitive verbs = a bad combination*

Example: _Poikia tapasi toisiaan kadulla._
Better: _Kadulla oli poikia toisiaan tapaamassa._

_Miehiä näki minut._
Better: _Muutama mies näki minut._

_Lintuja söi tarjoamiani siemeniä talven aikana._
Better: _Talven aikana meillä kävi lintuja syömässä tarjoamiani siemeniä._

Ps. I think you can avoid this by using relative clauses.

Keitinlasista/Koeputkesta läikkyi happoa, joka poltti minun kättäni.

Vuorelta vyöryi alas liejua, joka peitti koko mäenrinteen.

Katota putosi tiiliä, jotka tekivät lommoja autoon.

What did you mean by 'koelasi', a beaker, a test tube, a petri dish, an Erlenmeyer flask...?


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> *Partial subjects + transitive verbs = a bad combination*


 
Is this rule mentioned in _Iso Suomen Kielioppi_, or is it based on your language-ear as a native speaker? 

Regardless, you've come very close to resolving my question in the other thread. Thanks!

PS. -- _koelasi_ was my dictionary's suggestion for "beaker" as used in a scientific laboratory. I had something like an Erlemeyer flask in mind.



Grumpy Old Man said:


> Unfortunately they all sound rather bad even though they are perfectly understandable. My suggestions:
> 
> _Koelasista / Koeputkesta läikkynyt happo poltti [minun] kättäni._


_

Which of the two translations below would be best for this sentence? Or would they both be equally possible without further context?

"Some acid, which had spilled from a lab beaker, burned my hand." [In other words, the acid hasn't been mentioned prior to this sentence.]

"The acid, which had spilled from a lab beaker, burned my hand."_


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> Is this rule mentioned in _Iso Suomen Kielioppi_, or is it based on your language-ear as a native speaker?
> 
> Regardless, you've come very close to resolving my question in the other thread. Thanks!
> 
> PS. -- _koelasi_ was my dictionary's suggestion for "beaker" as used in a scientific laboratory. I had something like an Erlemeyer flask in mind.



This rule is mentioned in an old normative article on the Finnish language and it may draw very general conclusions. But I haven't found exceptions yet, apart from careless spoken language.

Beaker = keitinlasi
(Erlenmeyer flask = Erlenmeyer / "erla" / keittopullo, but this word is hardly recognized by people without deeper knowledge in chemistry; I don't recommend it unless you want to be scientifically exact)

You can also put it simply: _astia_ (container)

Ps.



> *Predikaatin laatu* taas märää subjektin totaalisuuden ja partiaalisuuden sikäli, että partiaalinen subjekti on mahdollinen yleensä vain sellaisten intransitiiviverbien ollessa predikaattina, jotka osoittavat asemaa tai liikettä, jota vastoin muunlaisten intransitiiviverbien ja kaikkien transitiiviverbien subjekti on aina totaalinen. Esim. "_Poikia _käveli kadulla" (mutta: "_Pojat _tapasivat toisensa kadulla"). Jos subjektin oma merkitys vaatisi partitiivin käyttämistä, täytyy asia ilmaista transitiivipredikaattia välttämällä; esim. "_Poikia _oli kadulla toisiansa tapaamassa."


(Tietojen kirja, 5. painos 1950, osa 3, sivu 724: "Suomen kieli, Subjekti ja predikaatti", by Kaarlo Nieminen)


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> Which of the two translations below would be best for this sentence? Or would they both be equally possible without further context?
> 
> "Some acid, which had spilled from a lab beaker, burned my hand." [In other words, the acid hasn't been mentioned prior to this sentence.]
> 
> "The acid, which had spilled from a lab beaker, burned my hand."


Both are possible.



sakvaka said:


> Katota putosi tiiliä, jotka tekivät lommoja autoon.


Is this really correct Finnish? I think in the grammar book written by Setälä, which I used to study in the fifties, _tiiliä_ was a singular partitive of _tiili_ and _jotka_ a plural relative pronoun. Of course I accept _tiiliä_ in this context if it is considered correct. I just want to make sure. One thing is certain: it jars in my ear!


----------



## sakvaka

Would you declinate _tiili_ for us then? 

N tiili - tiilet
G tiilen - tiilten/tiilien
P tiiltä - tiiliä
Ill. tiileen - tiiliin

http://fi.wiktionary.org/wiki/tiili
http://users.jyu.fi/~pamakine/kieli/suomi/vaihtelu/ievaihtelu.html

And not:

N tiili - tiilit
G tiilin - tiilien
P tiiliä - tiilejä
Ill. tiiliin - tiileihin


----------



## hui

sakvaka said:


> G tiilen - tiilten/tiilien


 
Nowadays, _tiili_ is declined like _moni._ However, _hiilten/hiilien_ are both correct; _hiili_ is declined like _uni._

_Siili _and _viili_ are declined like _risti._

[Suomen kielen perussanakirja, 1990 - 1994]

Subject is discussed in detail in _Iso suomen kielioppi,_ chapters 910 - 924, e.g.:

§ 916 Nominatiivin tai partitiivin valinta myönteisessä lauseessa
http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=916



sakvaka said:


> *Partial subjects + transitive verbs = a bad combination*


 
Essentially the same in my old Finnish grammar book:

"Jos lauseen predikaattina on verbi, jolla on objekti (ns. transitiiviverbi), _subjekti ei voi olla partitiivissa._"
_Salme Sadeniemi: Kirjoita oikein, 1974_


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

"N tiili - tiilet
G tiilen - tiilten/tiilien
P tiiltä - tiiliä
Ill. tiileen - tiiliin"

I do believe that the above forms are officially correct, and I would never use _tiilin_ as a genitive, for example.  However, _tiiliä_ as a plural partitive just sounds wrong to my ear and thus I don't use it.  I would find it equally wrong to say: _Katolta putosi *siiliä*. _I checked and found out that it is actually even officially wrong!


----------

