# Otan kalkkunaa / kalkkunan.



## Gavril

*Mod note: thread split from here.*



Hakro said:


> Hi Gavril,
> 
> Right, if there's only one subject I would use the accusative case _minut_.
> 
> On the other hand, I could say that _"Äitini ja isoisäni kasvattivat minu*t* kommunistiksi / oikeistolaiseksi"_. If I say that _"Äitini ja isoisäni kasvattivat minu*a* kommunistiksi / oikeistolaiseksi"_ it (most probably) means that they didn't succeed.



Interesting. Would you extend this pattern to other verbs besides _kasvattaa_? E.g,. what do you think of the form _kalkkuna*n*_ in sentence _Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkunan_?


----------



## Hakro

Sure.
_Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkuna*n* _– they ate a turkey, all of it, totally.
_Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkuna*a* _– they ate turkey, a part of it, or they were eating turkey. 
Note also "Juhani and Terho took turkey but I ordered beef": _Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkuna*a* mutta minä tilasin pihvin._

I'm sorry that I have difficulties to explain these differences with my poor English.


----------



## Gavril

Hi Hakro,



Hakro said:


> Sure.
> _Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkuna*n* _– they ate a turkey, all of it, totally.
> _Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkuna*a* _– they ate turkey, a part of it, or they were eating turkey.
> Note also "Juhani and Terho took turkey but I ordered beef": _Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkuna*a* mutta minä tilasin pihvin._
> 
> I'm sorry that I have difficulties to explain these differences with my poor English.



There's nothing wrong with your English explanations, but I still don't understand the contrast involved here.

The relationship between _Juhani söi kalkkunan _:_ Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkunan _seems to be exactly the same as_ Äiti kasvatti minut : Isoäiti ja äiti kasvatti minut. _So why is _Isoäiti ja äiti kasvatti minut _less natural-sounding than_ Juhani ja Terho söivät kalkkunan_?


----------



## Gavril

> Note also "Juhani and Terho took turkey but I ordered beef": _Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkuna*a* mutta minä tilasin pihvin._



What is the difference between saying this and saying _Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkuna*n *..._?


----------



## Spongiformi

Gavril said:


> saying _Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkuna*n *..._?



This means Juhani and Terho were so ravenous they took the whole turkey.

I suppose it might work, more or less, under particular circumstances:

_Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat (valitsivat) kalkkunan mutta minä tilasin pihvin._ (Here you could imagine it's referring to one of the choices listed.)

It's safer to stick to _kalkkunaa, _though. Unless you really are voracious.


----------



## Gavril

Spongiformi said:


> This means Juhani and Terho were so ravenous they took the whole turkey.
> 
> I suppose it might work, more or less, under particular circumstances:
> 
> _Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat (valitsivat) kalkkunan mutta minä tilasin pihvin._ (Here you could imagine it's referring to one of the choices listed.)



I thought that _kalkkuna_ and _pihvi_ were also two items on the menu in the original sentence (_J. ja T. ottivat kalkkunaa mutta minä tilasin pihvin_). If _ottivat kalkkunaa _in that sentence means "They ordered turkey", why is _kalkkuna_ in the partitive but not _pihvi_?


----------



## Spongiformi

Gavril said:


> I thought that _kalkkuna_ and _pihvi_ were also two items on the menu in the original sentence (_J. ja T. ottivat kalkkunaa mutta minä tilasin pihvin_). If _ottivat kalkkunaa _in that sentence means "They ordered turkey", why is _kalkkuna_ in the partitive but not _pihvi_?



_Pihvi_, steak (forget Hakro's beef for now), is a portion of food measured to be eatable by a person and thus intended to be eaten whole. _Kalkkuna_ is the name of the bird and, by extension, the name of its meat. However, there's no fixed portion below the whole bird. If you want to indicate such, you need to say _kalkkunapihvi_, turkey steak, for example. _Tilasin kalkkunapihvin. Tilasin kalkkuna-annoksen. Ostin (kokonaisen) kalkkunan jouluksi._


----------



## Gavril

Spongiformi said:


> _Kalkkuna_ is the name of the bird and, by extension, the name of its meat. However, there's no fixed portion below the whole bird.



Returning to to your example,



> _Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat (valitsivat) kalkkunan mutta minä tilasin pihvin. (Here you could imagine it's referring to one of the choices listed.)_



Does the form _kalkkunan _here imply that they ordered a whole bird, since (as you said) there is no fixed portion of _kalkkuna_ smaller than that?

Kiitos vielä kerran


----------



## Spongiformi

Gavril said:


> Does the form _kalkkunan _here imply that they ordered a whole bird, since (as you said) there is no fixed portion of _kalkkuna_ smaller than that?



No, in that forceful example they chose an item from a list. So, it was a question of a menu item with the contents of the item ignored. I merely wanted to create an example where accusative could be used. I guess I only ended up confusing you. You shouldn't look too deeply into it for any practical applications.


----------



## Gavril

Spongiformi said:


> No, in that forceful example they chose an item from a list. So, it was a question of a menu item with the contents of the item ignored. I merely wanted to create an example where accusative could be used.



Hmm, I'm a bit confused now. 

If "kalkkuna" is understood as an item on a list, then I would expect it to take the -_n_ accusative just as _pihvi_ does in the earlier sentence: "_He ottivat kalkkuna*n* mutta minä tilasin pihvi*n*."
_
Since each of us ordered a whole item on the menu (rather than a part of each item), then doesn't that mean that none of the objects are partial, and therefore each object should take the -_n_ accusative form (_kalkkunan _: _pihvin_)?

Or does the contrast have to do with the verbs, _ottaa_ preferring a partitive object in this case (_kalkkuna*a*_) but _tilata_ preferring a total object (_kalkkuna*n*_)?


----------



## Spongiformi

Alright, I will twist the setting a bit to illustrate what I'm trying to say:

_- Teurastamme joko kalkkunan tai naudan, ja paistamme pihvejä. Kumman valitsemme?_
- Kalkkunan / Naudan.

I admit the original example would have worked better if we weren't stuck with two so different things. _Kalkkuna_ isn't yet food, whereas _pihvi_ is.

If Hakro had written: _"Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkunaa mutta minä tilasin härkää"_, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all...

And no, I don't think the verb is the one playing the role here. I added "_valitsivat" _up there because I wanted to make it more clear I was talking about menu items, not food.


----------



## Hakro

Spongiformi said:


> If Hakro had written: _"Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkunaa mutta minä tilasin härkää"_, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all...


I couldn't write _"härkää"_ because I'm sure that "steak" it's the only animal that has changed its sex after death.


----------



## Gavril

Spongiformi said:


> And no, I don't think the verb is the one playing the role here. I added "_valitsivat" _up there because I wanted to make it more clear I was talking about menu items, not food.



I realized that I missed something about your earlier example: 



> _Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat (valitsivat) kalkkunan_



Would it be right to say that _kalkkuna*n*_ is used because _kalkkuna_ was mentioned earlier in the same sentence? (I.e., if there had been no previous mention of it, then the form _kalkkuna*a*_ would be used instead?)


----------



## Spongiformi

Gavril said:


> Would it be right to say that _kalkkuna*n*_ is used because _kalkkuna_ was mentioned earlier in the same sentence? (I.e., if there had been no previous mention of it, then the form _kalkkuna*a*_ would be used instead?)



No, there's no such rule. I ought to mention that in the example that got you so confused, it would still be more proper, I reckon, to use _"kalkkunaa"_. Like I said, I purposefully tried to create a situation that would make the other form possible.

_"Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkunaa mutta minä tilasin pihvin_." <- This is probably how most would say it, after all.

Now that I had a look at it, obviously the verb can play a role, but I don't think that's the point here. Since if you choose a verb that requires one form or another, the debate loses its purpose.


----------



## Gavril

Spongiformi said:


> No, there's no such rule. I ought to mention that in the example that got you so confused, it would still be more proper, I reckon, to use _"kalkkunaa". _Like I said, I purposefully tried to create a situation that would make the other form possible.


 
But then what is it about that context that makes the form _kalkkunan_ possible?

Earlier, you seemed to be saying that _kalkkuna_ is conceived of (in that context) as simply an "item" on the menu, and therefore it is a total (rather than partial) object of the verb -- is that understanding correct?

(In that case, it should be possible -- even if it's not common -- to say _Juhani ja Terho ottivat kalkkuna*n* _in any context where_ kalkkuna _is a menu item.)


----------



## Määränpää

Gavril said:


> Would it be right to say that _kalkkuna*n*_ is used because _kalkkuna_ was mentioned earlier in the same sentence? (I.e., if there had been no previous mention of it, then the form _kalkkuna*a*_ would be used instead?)


I think you are right and _kalkkunan _can mean a known amount of turkey meat, just like in the example with beer:


sakvaka said:


> _I_ _saw there was some beer left in the glass. _[I.e., there was only a partial amount of beer, not a whole unit]_  I was very thirsty, so I drank up the beer_. [I.e., I drank all the beer left in the glass]
> _Huomasin, että lasissa oli vähän olutta jäljellä._ The amount is partial.
> _Olin todella janoinen, joten join oluen. _The amount is not partial anymore, it is clearly defined by the context. Now this starts to resemble the English articles!


If a restaurant has only one kind of turkey portion in its menu, asking for some turkey (ottaisin kalkkunaa) and asking for the turkey (ottaisin kalkkunan) produces identical results, doesn't it?


----------



## Gavril

Hi Määränpää and Spongiformi,

There's one other thing in that sentence I'm curious about: why is the first "kalkkuna" in the nominative rather than the partitive? 



> _Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: *kalkkuna *tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat (valitsivat) kalkkunan_



Since this is the first mention of turkey in the context, and since it's not referring to a full "unit" of turkey (= a whole bird), then I would expect it to appear in the form _kalkkuna*a*_ here (though I have some guesses as to why it doesn't).

Kiitoksia paljon


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> There's one other thing in that sentence I'm curious about: why is the first "kalkkuna" in the nominative rather than the partitive?
> 
> 
> 
> _Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: *kalkkuna *tai pihvi. Juhani ja Terho ottivat (valitsivat) kalkkunan_
Click to expand...

I think that here 'kalkkuna' and 'pihvi' are kind of names of the portions. 
On the othe hand, you could as well say, "_Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna*a* tai pihvi*ä*._"


----------



## Spongiformi

It's referring to the meat of turkey, or rather any food made of it, since it's a food menu. But yeah, it's okay to expect it to appear in partitive. I'm repeating myself, but like I said, I simply wanted to create a situation where it could work.

Similar to:
Kokkauskilpailun lihavalikoima oli hyvin suppea: kalkkunanliha tai naudanliha.

_Edit:_ Actually, I like Hakro's explanation better than my own.


----------



## Gavril

Thanks, Hakro and Spongiformi.

This discussion is reminding me how strange the modern-day concept of a "product" is: nowadays, almost everything can be thought of as an abstract "item" with a price attached to it (as in "Our special tonight is* turkey*", where "turkey" could be either _kalkkun*aa* _or_ kalkkun*a*_), rather than just a natural object ("I saw *a turkey* in the woods"). 

I feel like this modern system of dual meanings (natural object vs. product/item) doesn't fit very naturally with the Finnish distinction between nominative/accusative and partitive, but maybe I'm reading too much into all this.


----------



## akana

For some reason I thought that all menu items appear (on the menu) in the nominative. A menu I found on google proves my memory wrong, but there are still instances where items are in the nominative but I'm not sure why. Valkosipulietanat, for example. It could be that with some food items, the distinction is not very clean. 

As to the object/product distinction, I think we have the same problem in English. "I saw a turkey," without further explanation or context, could mean that you were are at the grocery store or in the woods. At the restaurant, people commonly say either, "I think I'll have turkey" or "I think I'll have the turkey" without people batting an eye. Now, if they said, "I think I'll have a turkey," that would make people sit up and take notice.


----------



## Gavril

akana said:


> As to the object/product distinction, I think we have the same problem in English. "I saw a turkey," without further explanation or context, could mean that you were are at the grocery store or in the woods. At the restaurant, people commonly say either, "I think I'll have turkey" or "I think I'll have the turkey" without people batting an eye.



Is this the same ambiguity as _Otan kalkkuna__n_/_kalkkunaa_, though? In English, the distinction is between something that has a "name" (_the turkey_) vs. something unnamed (_turkey_), rather than a unit (_kalkkuna_(_n_)) vs. a partial amount (_kalkkunaa_) as in Finnish.


----------



## akana

Gavril said:


> Is this the same ambiguity as _Otan kalkkuna__n_/_kalkkunaa_, though? In English, the distinction is between something that has a "name" (_the turkey_) vs. something unnamed (_turkey_), rather than a unit (_kalkkuna_(_n_)) vs. a partial amount (_kalkkunaa_) as in Finnish.



I'm not really sure...it's tough to make parallels that don't start to fall apart under closer scrutiny. But if the previously cited example from sakvaka is any indicator, then the accusative does seem to behave like an English article in some cases. In other words, it distinguishes between something that has been mentioned previously and something that has not. I'll apply the same example to kalkkuna:

_Huomasin, että lautasella oli vähän kalkkunaa ja salaattia jäljellä.
Olin todella nälkäinen, joten söin kalkkunan, mutta jätin salaatin syömättä._

Note that I added "salaatti" since without a second object, I think we would just say, "....joten söin sen." Note also that without the first sentence introducing the kalkkuna, the second sentence, whether in Finnish and English, would be ambiguous as to whether an entire turkey was eaten.

It's a very specific situation, and a bit cobbled together, but what do you think? Maybe I'm just going around in circles with what's already been mentioned.

It's confusing to me that I can't find similar examples in grammar texts if the accusative can indeed serve the function of distinguishing between old information and new.

Anyhow, no idea if I'm answering your question =)


----------



## Määränpää

akana said:


> But if the previously cited example from sakvaka is any indicator, then the accusative does seem to behave like an English article in some cases. In other words, it distinguishes between something that has been mentioned previously and something that has not.



The way I understand it, an amount that has been partial when it has been introduced (new information) becomes a "unit" when it's talked about again (old information).

When you say (correctly) that the accusative behaves like an English article in some cases, I think it means the cases where the verb allows a distinction between accusative and partitive objects:

_Näin lautasella vähän kalkkunaa. Söin kalkkunan.
I saw some turkey on the plate. I ate the turkey.

_(Of course some Finnish verbs require the object to be in partitive whether it's old/new/partial/total:

_Näin lautasella vähän kalkkunaa. Tökin kalkkunaa haarukalla.
I saw some turkey on the plate. I poked at the turkey with a fork._)



P.S.





akana said:


> Olin todell*a* nälkäinen, joten söin kalkkunan, mutta jätin salaatin syömättä.


----------



## Gavril

Hi Akana,

My explanation in the last message wasn't very clear, so I'll try to rephrase it.

Finnish  distinguishes between a "unit" of something and an inexact or undefined  amount of something. You expect that an inexact amount of something  will be referred to in the partitive the first time it's mentioned: _Ruokalistalla oli kalkkuna*a*_. 

However,  because of the modern-day language of products/items, it seems (I may  be wrong) that there is a tendency to turn inexact amounts into  artificial "units of sale", in which case they appear in the nominative  or -_n_ accusative even when they haven't been mentioned before: _Ruokalistalla oli kalkkun*a*_ / _Tilasin kalkkuna*n*_.

Since  this applies even when something is being mentioned for the first time,  the distinction you refer to between partitive (first mention) and  accusative (second mention) doesn't seem to come into play.

The language of products/items may also have a disruptive effect on English grammar, but in cases like _I'll order *the* turkey, _it seems that the  distinction being "disrupted" is not the distinction between a partial object and unit, but rather between something  known/mentioned (definite article) and something not yet mentioned  (indefinite article or no article).



akana said:


> I'm not  really sure...it's tough to make parallels that don't start to fall  apart under closer scrutiny. But if the previously cited example from  sakvaka is any indicator, then the accusative does seem to behave like  an English article in some cases. In other words, it distinguishes  between something that has been mentioned previously and something that  has not. I'll apply the same example to kalkkuna:
> 
> _Huomasin, että lautasella oli vähän kalkkunaa ja salaattia jäljellä.
> Olin todellen nälkäinen, joten söin kalkkunan, mutta jätin salaatin syömättä._
> 
> Note that I added "salaatti" since without a second object, I think we  would just say, "....joten söin sen." Note also that without the first  sentence introducing the kalkkuna, the second sentence, whether in  Finnish and English, would be ambiguous as to whether an entire turkey  was eaten.
> 
> It's a very specific situation, and a bit cobbled together, but what do  you think? Maybe I'm just going around in circles with what's already  been mentioned.
> 
> It's confusing to me that I can't find similar examples in grammar texts  if the accusative can indeed serve the function of distinguishing  between old information and new.
> 
> Anyhow, no idea if I'm answering your question =)


----------



## akana

I think I understand what you're saying. Articles certainly allow a lot of flexibility and specificity; you can apply them to subjects as well as objects, and in Finnish you always have to worry about the rules for using partitives in existential sentences. From a practical standpoint, however, I've never felt Finnish to be lacking, since there are almost always contextual clues to indicate what is partial and what is not.

This thread is very interesting, and gets at an issue that confuses a lot of people. I feel, however, that there are a lot of overlapping questions that make it hard to pin anything down for certain. For instance, in my example above, the first sentence is an existential sentence, which has its own set of rules. (Related aside: If you haven't read Ossi Ihalainen's "Some Remarks on Word Order and Definiteness in Finnish and English," I would highly recommend it.)

Kalkkuna is also a particularly thorny word in that it can refer to an animal, a whole frozen food product, an indefinite amount of meat or a conceptually "whole" item on a menu, regardless of its actual form.

True story: Years ago a former boss of mine left a frozen turkey on the trunk of my car as a "thanksgiving bonus." My coworker came inside after his break and said, "Watch out when you leave, there's a turkey on top of your car." It took me a while before I figured out that he wasn't talking about a wild turkey.


----------



## akana

Määränpää said:


> The way I understand it, an amount that has been partial when it has been introduced (new information) becomes a "unit" when it's talked about again (old information).
> 
> When you say (correctly) that the accusative behaves like an English article in some cases, I think it means the cases where the verb allows a distinction between accusative and partitive objects:
> 
> _Näin lautasella vähän kalkkunaa. Söin kalkkunan.
> I saw some turkey on the plate. I ate the turkey.
> 
> _(Of course some Finnish verbs require the object to be in partitive whether it's old/new/partial/total:
> 
> _Näin lautasella vähän kalkkunaa. Tökin kalkkunaa haarukalla.
> I saw some turkey on the plate. I poked at the turkey with a fork._)
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.



Thanks! Funny because I had missed your post, thought of just this issue, then logged on to comment only to see you had already mentioned it. So the old/new info phenomenon appears to be essentially a coincidence.


----------



## Gavril

akana said:


> This thread is very interesting, and gets at an issue that confuses a lot of people. I feel, however, that there are a lot of overlapping questions that make it hard to pin anything down for certain. For instance, in my example above, the first sentence is an existential sentence, which has its own set of rules.



If we look at the minimal pair of 

1) _Ruokalistalla oli *kalkkunaa*_
and
2) _Ruokalistalla oli *kalkkuna*_

then it seems as though the difference between the two has to do with how the noun _kalkkuna_ is being conceptualized (a unit or a partial amount), rather than being conditioned by the existential construction.



> (Related aside: If you haven't read Ossi Ihalainen's "Some Remarks on Word Order and Definiteness in Finnish and English," I would highly recommend it.)



I can't find a copy online, but I'll try to track it down. Thanks.



> Kalkkuna is also a particularly thorny word in that it can refer to an animal, a whole frozen food product, an indefinite amount of meat or a conceptually "whole" item on a menu, regardless of its actual form.



But isn't this conceptual "wholeness" largely a modern invention? At least some of the constructions we use for talking about this "wholeness" (_I'll have *a* coffee _/ _J'ai commandé *de la* dinde_, etc.) seem to have been developed in languages that have articles, and these constructions can interfere to some degree with the existing categories of article-free languages like Finnish.


----------



## akana

Gavril said:


> I can't find a copy online, but I'll try to track it down. Thanks.



You can find a copy here. The link wasn't working for me earlier, which is why I didn't post it before, but now it's working fine. It's a good read, and gets at some of the issues we've been discussing.

That's an interesting theory about modern commodities not fitting in very well. It would be an interesting area of research.

What do Finns think about the use of partitives on menus? Are there any set conventions? 

To me it's confusing. Once I was making some large labels for a local Finnish bake sale and I was surprised when my Finnish friend corrected my "karjalanpiirakoita" to "karjalanpiirakat." To me that makes it sound like all of the various types of karjalanpiirakat are on the table. As I mentioned earlier, I also don't understand why, for example, valkosipulietanat would be in the nominative on a menu.


----------



## Määränpää

Gavril said:


> If we look at the minimal pair of
> 
> 1) _Ruokalistalla oli *kalkkunaa*_
> and
> 2) _Ruokalistalla oli *kalkkuna
> *_
> then it seems as though the difference between the two has to do with how the noun kalkkuna is being conceptualized (a unit or a partial amount), rather than being conditioned by the existential construction.



I thought it's precisely the rules of existential construction dictating that (1) turkey meat is in the partitive and (2) one whole bird is in the nominative?



akana said:


> What do Finns think about the use of partitives on menus? Are there any set conventions?
> 
> To me it's confusing. Once I was making some large labels for a local Finnish bake sale and I was surprised when my Finnish friend corrected my "karjalanpiirakoita" to "karjalanpiirakat." To me that makes it sound like all of the various types of karjalanpiirakat are on the table. As I mentioned earlier, I also don't understand why, for example, valkosipulietanat would be in the nominative on a menu.



Partitive on a menu is a sign of classiness. I've never seen "kebabia", for example.

"Valkosipulietanoita" would seem fine to me, but maybe it's in the nominative because a snail pan always has the same number of snails (making it a unit), who knows.

Regarding the "karjalanpiirakat" sign, if a supermarket aisle had a sign saying "juustoja" (some cheeses here, possibly more cheeses in other aisles) instead of "juustot" (all o_ur _cheeses (not all the world's cheeses)), I'd be confused.


----------



## Gavril

Määränpää said:


> I thought it's precisely the rules of existential construction dictating that (1) turkey meat is in the partitive and (2) one whole bird is in the nominative?



But if I understood Hakro and Spongiformi in posts #26-27 (perhaps I didn't quite understand them), then _kalkkuna _in sentence 2 doesn't necessarily refer to one whole bird: it can also simply be the specific portion the restaurant serves, treated as a unit and therefore in the nominative. Would you agree with that?


----------



## Määränpää

Spongiformi said:


> _Liharuokamenu oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi._


The sentence ends with a colon and a list. I think words behave differently in concise lists and in "real" sentences.

*Edit:* Almost all examples of "ruokalistalla oli/on + [nominative]" that I found on Google were referring to salads and soups where there is no risk of confusion.


----------



## Gavril

Määränpää said:


> The sentence ends with a colon and a list. I think words behave differently in concise lists and in "real" sentences.



So, is it acceptable to say _Ruokalistalla oli kalkkuna _[nominative] if 1) there has been no previous mention of _kalkkuna_ in the context, and 2) _kalkkuna_ doesn't refer to a whole turkey?

What would you say is the difference (in terms of the meaning of _kalkkuna_ and _pihvi_) between

_Ruokalista oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna tai pihvi._
and
_Ruokalista oli hyvin rajallinen: kalkkuna*a* tai pihvi*ä*._

?


----------



## Spongiformi

Technicalities aside, personally I don't think there's any difference.  Nobody expects to be served a whole turkey when ordering food in a  restaurant, unless the dish is listed on a page of foods meant for a  group of people, not individuals. Nor does anybody expect a steak to be  significantly smaller than they usually are (like a halved steak, unless  it's specifically mentioned). However, I still wouldn't expect to see a  menu like that because _"kalkkuna(a)"_ doesn't actually mean  much on a menu. It tells absolutely nothing about how the meat has been  prepared or what the dish will look like.

In my original example I added "_liha"_ to the menu title because I hoped it would kind of mean we are talking about different meats, not only dishes.


----------



## Tuuliska

I have to admit that just reading this thread has kind of confused my brain and I'm starting to experience a jamais vu of the word _kalkkuna_... But anyway.

I get the feeling that a lot of these cases are so borderline that they might just be more stylistic than anything else. It's just about which way you prefer to think about your serving of turkey. Is it a unit or is it an indefinite amount/portion? It doesn't really matter. All it influences is how people categorize the items mentioned, it doesn't actually have any different practical meaning.

There might be some conventions like maybe fancy menus use partitive as Määränpää said? I hadn't ever noticed that before but actually it probably is so, now that I think about it. But generally it doesn't really matter. Also, different people have different preferences too. You can't always trust a native speaker when they say something is wrong. (I know that there are phrases that I think are wrong but that I've learned to be correct.)

The accusative can indeed imply definiteness in some cases or at least you can interpret it that way. But I don't think it's quite the point of it, it's more that the semantic fields of the English definite article and the Finnish accusative can cross over. The accusative might not actually mean that something is definite but it can imply it indirectly? Or that's one way of interpreting it at least. (Anyway, if you do need to make a distinction between definite and indefinite, you can always use pronouns for that. Demonstrative pronouns for definite and indefinite pronouns for indefinite.)

I'm not sure if it was mentioned, though, that partitive can also imply things about the verb? _"Tilasin kalkkunaa" _can mean either "I ordered some turkey" or "I was ordering a/the/- turkey". On the other hand _"tilasin kalkkunan"_ seems to always be a single event with a clear end: "I ordered (the) turkey."
All that depends on the context, though.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how tricky the Finnish partitive is.


----------



## akana

Interesting perspective, thanks.

I think that marketing language is also just sloppier in general, and this might come into play with menus. English is rife with bizarre marketing terms, but one example that comes to mind when distinguishing between definite and indefinite quantities is the use of "10 items or less" on signs for supermarket express checkout lanes. With countable items, it should of course be "10 items or fewer" but I'm guessing very few are bothered by the distinction.


----------

