# tarrat / tarroja



## Gavril

Today, I read the following sentence in the Helsingin Sanomat:

"Vasta lähtiessäni huomasin hotellin ovenpieleen huomaamattomasti kiinnitetyt tarrat, joissa Michelin-mieskin vilahti."


I would understand _ovenpieleen ... kiinnitetyt tarrat _to mean "the stickers affixed to the doorframe". But, these stickers have not been mentioned anywhere before this in the article, so I would expect them to be referred to as _tarroja _"(some) stickers" rather than _tarrat_. 



Can anyone explain the use of the _-t _suffix in the above sentence?


K


----------



## Gavril

If it helps, here is the whole beginning of the article, up to the sentence I'm asking about:



> Irlannista löytyi hotelli, johon rakastuin.
> 
> Cahernanen kartanohotellin ikkunoista avautui näkymä pittoreskiin puistoon, jonka laidalla laidunsivat aamuin lehmät, illoin lampaat, ja laitumen takana siinsivät vuoret.
> 
> Vasta lähtiessäni huomasin hotellin ovenpieleen huomaamattomasti kiinnitetyt tarrat, joissa Michelin-mieskin vilahti.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Hi Gavril

You seem to take a serious interest in Finnish! I am not at all certain my explanation for the use of the nominative case is correct because I never studied Finnish grammar in earnest for more than I had to in school ages ago. I think I'm on the right track, though.

The nominative results from the verb _huomasin. Huomata_ is a verb that at least normally doesn't take an object in the partitive case in affirmative clauses:

Singular: _Huomasin tarran. _(Not: _tarraa_)
Plural: _Huomasin tarrat. _(_Tarroja_ could perhaps be used in some contexts as well but it wouldn't sound good to my ear in your sentence.)

Note that the partitive is used in negative clauses:
_En huomannut tarraa. / En huomannut tarroja._ (_Tarran _and _tarrat_ is absolutely impossible in these  examples.)

What would be called mass nouns or uncountable nouns in English are often used in the partitive as objects in Finnish:

_Ostin maitoa. = I bought [some] milk.

_If you say: _Ostin maidon,_ it indicates that you bought a bottle or a can or something similar filled with milk.


----------



## sakvaka

There are two kinds of objects in Finnish language: _total object_ (kokonaisobjekti) and  _partial object _(osaobjekti). Total object is used, when the action indicated by the verb takes place on the object in its totality. In this case, the object is in accusative case.

For example: 

Äiti osti torilta _linnun_. Mum bought a bird on the market place.
Poika sai uudet _vaatteet_. The boy got new clothes.

*But* if the action takes place on only a part of the whole object, the object is partial and its case is partitive.

Äiti osti torilta _lihaa_. Mum bought (some) meat on the market place.
Turhamaiset naiset hankkivat itselleen paljon _uusia vaatteita_. Pretentious women get themselves a lot of new clothes.

Whether the object is total or partial, depends also on the _quality_ of the predicate verb. If the verb signifies something that has already ended, for example in your sentence, the object is total. 

Some other examples:  

Poika luki _kirjan_ nopeasti. The boy read the book quickly.
Poika on jo lukenut _kirjan_. The boy has already read the book. 

(*But* it the verb signifies a continuing action that has not been carried to end, the object is partial.

Poika luki _kirjaa_ nopeasti. The boy was reading the book quickly.
Poika on vasta vähän aikaa lukenut _kirjaa_. The boy has been reading the book for only little time.)

And the last *Buts* - let me quote The Grumpy Old Man:

"What would be called mass nouns or uncountable nouns in English are often used in the partitive as objects in Finnish:

_Ostin maitoa. = I bought [some] milk."

"_the partitive is often used in negative clauses (but not always!):
_En huomannut tarraa. / En huomannut tarroja.
Etkö jo kerran aikaisemmin huomannut ne tarrat? _Didn't you notice the stickers once before?(the question is negative, but the answer is supposed to be affirmative)


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Many thanks, sakvaka! I knew all that but as I have no formal training in Finnish and I have never taught my native language to anybody, some of the complexities of Finnish grammar eluded me.


----------



## Gavril

Sakvaka,

Thank you for your explanation, but I'm still confused. I understand that the partitive refers to a partial object, but I thought that the partitive plural had an additional function: to refer to an indefinite subject or object. Thus_ 

Huomasin tarroja _"I noticed some stickers"

but _Huomasin tarrat _"I noticed the stickers"

Is my understanding wrong? (I.e., can _Huomasin tarrat _also mean "I noticed some stickers"?) Please let me know.


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> Can _Huomasin tarrat _also mean "I noticed some stickers"?)



I'm not a grammar teacher, and don't know very much about it. I found the description some posts up in an old grammar book, but there are even more "But"-s that have not been mentioned there.

EDIT:

The most important rule is this:

Think it as the object has an own "area". Total object means often either the whole area of the object or some specified part of the area. Partial object means some indefinite part of the object's area. 

Näin linnut. I saw the birds
Näin lintuja. I saw (some) birds.

EDIT2: The Big Finnish Grammar writes again something about this, but you have to wait till someone translates this into English.

http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=930


----------



## Gavril

Sakvaka,

Do you agree with Grumpy Old Man that _huomata _generally doesn't take the partitive in affirmative clauses -- in other words, that you wouldn't normally say or hear _Huomasin tarroja_?

Thanks for the link to _Iso suomen kielioppi_ -- my Finnish is good enough for me to understand the article, except for the following sentence (about verbs that only take partitive objects):



> Niillä on aspektuaalisesti rajaamaton merkitys, joka jossakin tilanteessa voi olla mielekkäästi muunneltavissa.


"... Which can, in some situations, be modifiable within reason"?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> Sakvaka,
> 
> Do you agree with Grumpy Old Man that _huomata _generally doesn't take the partitive in affirmative clauses -- in other words, that you wouldn't normally say or hear _Huomasin tarroja_?


"Plural: _Huomasin tarrat. _(_Tarroja_ could perhaps be used in some contexts as well but it wouldn't sound good to my ear in your sentence.)

Maybe I was thinking too much about your sentence when I wrote what I wrote. You could certainly say: _Huomasin tarroja hänen matkalaukussaan._

Adding the place seems to make all the difference  -  at least in this case  -  and the sentence is correct. The niceties of Finnish grammar are beyond me! However, _tarrat_ would also be possible in the sentence above in some other contexts. It would be required, for example, if the stickers had been talked about before and I were expecting to see them. In other words, you would say *the*_ stickers_ in English.


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> Sakvaka,
> 
> *1. *Do you agree with Grumpy Old Man that _huomata _generally doesn't take the partitive in affirmative clauses -- in other words, that you wouldn't normally say or hear _Huomasin tarroja_?
> 
> Thanks for the link to _Iso suomen kielioppi_ -- my Finnish is good enough for me to understand the article, except for the following sentence (about verbs that only take partitive objects):
> 
> *2.* "... Which can, in some situations, be modifiable within reason"?


 
*1. *No, I don't agree with him, and it seems that even he doesn't agree with himself . You can say "huomasin [vain jotain] tarroja", but this signifies that you just mention in passing having noticed them, but the stickers are irrelevant in the case of our discussion. 

If you say "huomasin [ne] tarrat", it gives an idea that they are really significant and related to what we're talking about.

*2.* "Niillä on aspektuaalisesti rajaamaton merkitys, joka jossakin tilanteessa voi olla mielekkäästi muunneltavissa."

"They have an aspectually undefined (unlimited) significance, which can, in some situations, be meaningfully modified (altered)", I'd say.


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> *1. *No, I don't agree with him, and it seems that even he doesn't agree with himself . You can say "huomasin [vain jotain] tarroja", but this signifies that you just mention in passing having noticed them, but the stickers are irrelevant in the case of our discussion.
> 
> If you say "huomasin [ne] tarrat", it gives an idea that they are really significant and related to what we're talking about.



I think that this may be the key point here: the original sentence,

_Huomasin tarrat, joissa Michelin-mieskin vilahti_

may mean "I noticed those stickers [i.e., "those familiar stickers"] in which the figure of the Michelin Man twinkled." Hotel ratings, including Michelin, are one of the main themes of the article.

Now I'm wondering about the _-kin _in _Michelin-mieskin_ -- does that emphasize the relevance of what is on the stickers, just as _tarrat_ (possibly) emphasizes the relevance of the stickers?


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> Now I'm wondering about the _-kin _in _Michelin-mieskin_ -- does that emphasize the relevance of what is on the stickers, just as _tarrat_ (possibly) emphasizes the relevance of the stickers?


 
-kin means "also/even". It is a focus particle that guides you to pay special attention towards something. 

There are styles of Finnish in which these "liitepartikkelit" (-kin, -kaan, -pa, -pä, -ka, -s...) are used exceptionally much to create a chatty tone to the text (for example, all the texts I write contain a lot of them ) That means they can not be translated satisfyingly in every case, but this phrase seems to follow the "normal style" quite well. I still sense a bit of this "chatty style" in it..

Therefore, the whole sentence would be translated:

"(in a friendly style) I noticed those [special and familiar] stickers in which [there was] even a figure of the Michelin Man twinkling" 

That's quite a lot of extra information in a single sentence, isn't it!


----------



## dinji

Grumpy Old Man said:


> "Plural: _Huomasin tarrat. _(_Tarroja_ could perhaps be used in some contexts as well but it wouldn't sound good to my ear in your sentence.)
> 
> Maybe I was thinking too much about your sentence when I wrote what I wrote. You could certainly say: _Huomasin tarroja hänen matkalaukussaan._
> 
> Adding the place seems to make all the difference - at least in this case - and the sentence is correct. The niceties of Finnish grammar are beyond me! However, _tarrat_ would also be possible in the sentence above in some other contexts. It would be required, for example, if the stickers had been talked about before and I were expecting to see them. In other words, you would say *the*_ stickers_ in English.


I would rather make the difference a s follows:

_Huomasin tarroja hänen matkalaukussaan_
'I noticed some (amount of) stickers on/in his suitcase'

_Huomasin tarrat hänen matkalaukussaan_
'I noticed a number of stickers on/in his suitcase'

The second sentence may have _tarrat_ in the accusative case regardless whether the stickers were mentioned before or whether the listener is supposed to be familiar with them. A comparison to the Germanic/English definitive article takes you nowhere, it will ultimately confuse you to make that analogy. I talk from personal experience.

Pls have a new look at Sakvakas first definition.


----------



## Gavril

dinji said:


> I would rather make the difference a s follows:
> 
> _Huomasin tarroja hänen matkalaukussaan_
> 'I noticed some (amount of) stickers on/in his suitcase'
> 
> _Huomasin tarrat hänen matkalaukussaan_
> 'I noticed a number of stickers on/in his suitcase'
> 
> The second sentence may have _tarrat_ in the accusative case regardless whether the stickers were mentioned before or whether the listener is supposed to be familiar with them. A comparison to the Germanic/English definitive article takes you nowhere, it will ultimately confuse you to make that analogy. I talk from personal experience.
> 
> Pls have a new look at Sakvakas first definition.



I'm not sure I understand. In English, as far as I understand, the phrases _some _(_amount of_)_ stickers_ and_ a number of stickers_ are synonymous, unless _a number _means "a relatively large number". What distinction are you making between them?

Do you agree with the linked article in _Iso suomen kielioppi _concerning the use of the -_t _suffix?


----------



## dinji

Yes I agree with it. How could I not agree ?
No mentioning of the definite or "known before in the narrative" aspect here.


----------



## Gavril

dinji said:


> Yes I agree with it. How could I not agree ?
> No mentioning of the definite or "known before in the narrative" aspect here.



OK. For what it's worth, in my limited (but not totally negligible) experience with Finnish, the _-t _suffix almost always appears where I would expect a definite article in English, and the partitive plural where I wouldn't expect one. I'm aware of exceptions such as _hampaat_ etc.

Could you please clarify the difference between "some (amount of) stickers" and "a number of stickers" in your post above? Thanks.


----------



## dinji

a number of stickers = countable: a certain number of stickers
some (amount of) stickers = uncountable, or the precise amount would not be of interest or relevance to the narrative


----------



## Gavril

dinji said:


> a number of stickers = countable: a certain number of stickers
> some (amount of) stickers = uncountable, or the precise amount would not be of interest or relevance to the narrative



So, _tarrat _in this case is like _hampaat_/_jalat_/etc., in that there is some expectation that a reader will know (roughly) how many stickers are being discussed?


----------



## Gavril

More than a year later, and I still don't fully understand this. 

Today's Viivi ja Wagner (link) has the sentence,

_Asensin_ _kaiuttimet_ _joka huoneeseen_

It's clear from the context that _kaiuttimet_ means "loudspeakers" (indefinite) rather than "the loudspeakers" (definite). I wonder,

- If there was a different number of speakers in each room (based on the  drawings, it looks like each room has two), would Wagner be saying _kaiuttimet _or _kaiuttimia_?

- If Wagner was telling this to Viivi over the phone -- i.e., if Viivi  wasn't present to see the number of speakers in each room -- would he still  be saying _kaiuttimet_, or would he be more likely to say _kaiuttimia_?

Kiitos


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> More than a year later, and I still don't fully understand this.


Nothing to worry about! Many Finns don't understand it either! I re-read most of what was said a year ago and I think virtually every aspect has been covered in the posts. The examples from Pirkko Leino's grammar book are excellent.

What has not been said is that in actual usage some people don't always use Finnish in accordance with the rules. There are situations in which many people just tend to say whatever they feel fits the situation  -  or sounds 'cool'. The other day I heard someone say 'Hyvät matkat' to a friend of his, who apparently was going to take a journey somewhere.

I can't be absolutely certain, but I don't think his friend was going to take multiple journeys. Yet the plural nominative (matkat) was used! (Not _Hyviä matkoja!) _It doesn't sound absolutely obominable to my ear but it's clearly incorrect. _Hyvää matkaa!_ is the normal phrase.

So, you see, people don't always go by the rules. Of course _asensin kaiuttimia_ would be correct in the comic strip. People just tend to say _kaiuttimet_ even though there is no good reason for that.

Just my amateurish 2 (euro) cents! You'll probably get other opinions.

GOM


----------



## Tappahannock

In this case, isn't it just because speakers are a natural pair like stereos   -- and eyes and ears?  So even if it were three speakers in some rooms or one speaker in one or more of the rooms, people still say _kaiuttimet_ in analogy to _stereot_?


----------



## sakvaka

Tappahannock said:


> In this case, isn't it just because speakers are a natural pair like stereos   -- and eyes and ears?  So even if it were three speakers in some rooms or one speaker in one or more of the rooms, people still say _kaiuttimet_ in analogy to _stereot_?



This is exactly what I would've answered.


----------



## Gavril

Tappahannock said:


> In this case, isn't it just because speakers are a natural pair like stereos   -- and eyes and ears?  So even if it were three speakers in some rooms or one speaker in one or more of the rooms, people still say _kaiuttimet_ in analogy to _stereot_?



Maybe this is the key to the original question (about the phrase _ovenpieleen huomaamattomasti kiinnitetyt tarrat_): the form _tarrat _indicates that there is a predetermined number of stickers on the doorframe, rather than a randomly chosen number. Does anyone know if Michelin hotel stickers (as discussed in the original article) have a restricted number/format?


----------



## Tappahannock

I don't have any further Finnish-specific perspective to offer on that question.

But if I were reading a travel article in English, I would hear subtle distinctions in intent among:

Then I saw some stickers posted discreetly on the door frame: etc.

Then I saw stickers posted discreetly on the door frame: etc.

Then I saw the stickers posted discreetly on the door frame: etc.

To me the last adds a bit of drama emphasizing the significance of the stickers.  After all, they are Michelin stickers...

(In fact, there is almost a progression of drama, a progression of assumption we will recognize the significance of these particular stickers, from the first example to the third.)

Of course translating _huomaamattomasti_ to _discreetly_ lends to this interpretation.  If one translated it to _unobtrusively_ or to something else more neutral, maybe it wouldn't sound so much that way.

Could the choice of _tarrat_ be working almost the same way in Finnish?


----------



## sunflour

Well done, Tappahannock! This is how I would explain the use of _tarrat_ here. Just would not have been able to put it into words.

Gavril: I don't think there is any certain restricted amount of Michelin stickers. You get one sticker each year they think you're entitled to one. So you can have one for 2006, another one for 2007, and a third one for 2008 and so on...


----------

