# kuin / kuten



## Gavril

Terve taas,

Would it be better to use _kuin _or _kuten _in the following sentences? Or, would the choice of either word change the meaning of the sentence?


_Palovedellä on eri pieniä saaria, kuin/kuten Möyrysaari ja Salonsaari.

En ole nähnyt lintuja kuin/kuten kiirunaa tai riekkoa Suomen etelärannalla.


_Kiitos vielä kerran


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

I don't understand what you mean by _eri_ in the first sentence.  In informal Finnish, or should I say incorrect Finnish, I don't really know, some people occasionally use it in the sense _erittäin_.  I don't think you have that in mind, though, or do you?  If not, just leave _eri_ out.  Only _kuten_ sounds acceptable to my ear in the first sentence.  The comma is not needed.

The second sentence strikes me as translationese from English: _I haven't seen birds *such as*..._ I don't know what our experts think but I get the impression from _En ole nähnyt lintuja_ that the speaker means he hasn't seen *any* birds.  This misunderstanding is soon rectified as the sentence proceeds.  I would prefer to say: _En ole nähnyt kiirunan tai riekon *kaltaisia* lintuja Suomen etelä*rannikolla*_.   _Ranta_ is too short a stretch of land to be used here.  You might say: _Hän seisoi rannalla. (= He was standing on the shore_.)


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> I don't understand what you mean by _eri_ in the first sentence.  In informal Finnish, or should I say incorrect Finnish, I don't really know, some people occasionally use it in the sense _erittäin_.  I don't think you have that in mind, though, or do you?



By _eri _I meant "various", but now that I think about it, _various_ sounds odd in this context even in English.

What if I said _Palovedellä on monia/useita pieniä saaria ... _instead?



> If not, just leave _eri_ out.  Only _kuten_ sounds acceptable to my ear in the first sentence.  The comma is not needed.
> 
> The second sentence strikes me as translationese from English: _I haven't seen birds *such as*..._ I don't know what our experts think but I get the impression from _En ole nähnyt lintuja_ that the speaker means he hasn't seen *any* birds.  This misunderstanding is soon rectified as the sentence proceeds.  I would prefer to say: _En ole nähnyt kiirunan tai riekon *kaltaisia* lintuja Suomen etelä*rannikolla*_.   _Ranta_ is too short a stretch of land to be used here.  You might say: _Hän seisoi rannalla. (= He was standing on the shore_.)



How about the following sentence:

_Suomen etelärannikolla ei usein näy pohjoisia lintuja kuin/kuten kiiruna.

_The distinction that I'm trying to get at here is between

1) a restrictive meaning: "You don't normally see northern birds that are like the kiiruna on the south coast of Finland (though you may see other kinds of northern birds)"
and
2) non-restrictive: "You don't normally see any northern birds, of which the kiiruna is one example, on the south coast of Finland"

Would the choice between these meanings affect the choice of _kuin _or _kuten_?

Kiitos vielä (kolmannen) kerran


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

"What if I said _Palovedellä on monia/useita pieniä saaria ... _instead?"
Fine. _Kuten_ would be used.

_"Suomen etelärannikolla ei usein näy pohjoisia lintuja kuin/kuten kiiruna."
_Only_ kuten _is correct.The sentence is grammatical but I don't often hear the adjective _pohjoinen_ used to refer to birds.  I'm not an expert on birds, so I don't know what they would say. I think _arktisia lintuja_ is more often used to refer to such birds.  I'm not sure, though.Perhaps someone else knows better.


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> The sentence is grammatical but I don't often hear the adjective _pohjoinen_ used to refer to birds.  I'm not an expert on birds, so I don't know what they would say. I think _arktisia lintuja_ is more often used to refer to such birds.  I'm not sure, though.Perhaps someone else knows better.



_arktisia _occurred to me as a possibility here, but I always choose a _suomennos _when one is available.


----------



## altazure

There are two different meanings for both "kuin" and "kuten":

kuten = such as (giving an example)_ "Suomen etelärannikolla ei usein näy pohjoisia lintuja kuten kiiruna._"
kuin = than/as (comparison) "Lokit ovat suurempia kuin talitiaiset." "Täällä on yhtä paljon väkeä kuin eilenkin."


When  the words are used to show similarity, the situation is a little more  complex. This is my hunch as a language user, not based on any  prescriptive grammar:

"Kuten" implies something happens in a similar manner,  and it can replace phrases such as niin kuin/samoin kuin/samalla tavoin  kuin; This makes it also broader in meaning than any of the more  specific constructions.
>>"Menemme tänä jouluna Thaimaahan lomalle kuten viime vuonnakin." "Uusi paavi valitaan kuten aina." "Kuten isäsi aina sanoi,..."
Many of these would be replaced by "(niin) kuin" in colloquial language:
>>"Menemme tänä jouluna Thaimaahan lomalle niin kuin viime vuonnakin." "Uusi paavi valitaan niin kuin aina." "Niin kuin isäsi aina sanoi,..."

"Kuin" is used for other kinds of similarities. It's also used instead of "kuten" in consciously metaphorical constructions.
>>"Uusi pilvenpiirtäjä on kuin Pisan torni: aivan vinossa." "Ryöstelijät kerääntyivät tuhoalueelle kuin kärpäset haaskalle." (<- This is a metaphor, so "kuin" replaces "kuten" as the marker of manner.) "Hehkulamppu on kuin pieni aurinko."

I'd like to hear other natives' comments on my theory, and if they can think of some other cases.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

altazure said:


> I'd like to hear other natives' comments on my theory, and if they can think of some other cases.


All I can say is that your sentences sound perfectly natural to my ear.


----------

