# partitive (singular) and definiteness



## Gavril

Päivää,

When a noun (or noun phrase) is the object of a transitive verb, the choice between partitive and accusative seems to be related to definiteness/indefiniteness:

_Löysin maitoa jääkaapista ja leipää kaapista. Join maidon, mutta päätin jättää leivän syömättä._

"I found some milk in the fridge and some bread in the cupboard. I drank the milk, but decided not to eat the bread."

Here, you are talking about partial quantities ("some milk", "some bread"), and therefore they initially appear in the partitive (_maitoa, leipää_). However, once they have been defined by the context of the first sentence, they shift to the accusative (_maidon, leivän_) the next time they are mentioned.



The pattern seems to be different when a noun or adjective is the complement of the verb olla, and you are choosing between partitive and nominative:

_Löysin maitoa jääkaapista ja leipää kaapista. Mutta maito oli hapanta ja leipä oli kuivaa._

"I found some milk in the fridge and some bread in the cupboard. But the milk was sour and the bread was stale."

Here, even after _maito _and _leipä _have been defined by the context of the first sentence, the adjectives describing them still need to be in the partitive (_hapanta / kuivaa_), as far as I understand, because _maito _and _leipä _are still semantically partial quantities (rather than units).

On the other hand, I think the nominative would be used for the adjectives in a sentence like

_Jääkaapista löysin omenan ja appelsiiinin. Mutta omena oli mauton ja appelsiini oli mätä._

"I found an apple and an orange in the fridge. But the apple was tasteless and the orange was rotten."

Because the nouns _omena _and _appelsiini _refer to units rather than partial quantities, the adjectives describing them in the second sentence are in the nominative (_mauton_, _mätä_) rather than the partitive.


Is this understanding correct?

Kiitos


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril, I don't have the vaguest idea about the grammatical reasons for _hapanta_ and _kuivaa_, but your logic seems valid as for the difference in form between _maitoa_ and _omenan._  I'm sure Hakro or somebody else who has a thorough knowledge of Finnish grammar can verify your conclusions.  All I can say is that all your sentences are perfectly good natural Finnish.


----------



## altazure

I would say _hapanta_ and _kuivaa_ need to be in partitive because you originally defined _maitoa_ and _leipää_ in partitive.

_"Löysin maitoa jääkaapista ja leipää kaapista._"
"I found some milk in the fridge and some bread in the cupboard."

Even if you have after this sentence defined the _maito_ and _leipä_, the amount of them is still unknown. There could be a crumb of bread, or two dozen loaves. There could be a drop of milk, or however many cartons. I feel it is this indefiniteness of amount that requires the (indefinite) partitive object. If you say _leipä oli kuiva_, it implies one loaf of bread, and that one loaf is dry; similarly: _maito oli hapan_ implies one carton of milk which is sour; but you haven't defined the amount.

Therefore, I think this is fine as well:

Löysin _maidon_ jääkaapista ja _leivän_ kaapista. Mutta _maito_ oli _hapan_ ja_ leipä_ oli _kuiva_.
"I found (a carton of) milk in the fridge and a (loaf of) bread in the cupboard. But the milk was sour and the bread was stale."


----------



## Hakro

In certain contexts I could say "löysin _maidon_ jääkaapista" but I would never say "_maito_ oli _hapan_". I think that partitive is needed because maito is an uncountable.


----------



## Gavril

altazure said:


> I would say _hapanta_ and _kuivaa_ need to be in partitive because you originally defined _maitoa_ and _leipää_ in partitive.
> 
> _"Löysin maitoa jääkaapista ja leipää kaapista._"
> "I found some milk in the fridge and some bread in the cupboard."
> 
> Even if you have after this sentence defined the _maito_ and _leipä_, the amount of them is still unknown. There could be a crumb of bread, or two dozen loaves. There could be a drop of milk, or however many cartons. I feel it is this indefiniteness of amount that requires the (indefinite) partitive object.



By "partitive object", do you mean the partitive form of the adjective?

I think this is an important distinction, because if  you define "partitive object" as the partitive object of a verb, then I  think the opposite of what you say is true. That's what I was hoping to  show with my first set of sentences:

_Löysin maitoa jääkaapista ja leipää kaapista. Join maidon, __mutta päätin jättää leivän syömättä._

I  don't mean to question your knowledge of Finnish -- I just think it's important in  this case to distinguish the partitive object (of a verb) from the  partitive form of an adjective (following _olla_).


----------



## altazure

Yes, I mean the partitive form of the adjective. I was so absorbed in the question that I got my terms mixed up (and apparently lost my track of what sounds natural, as Hakro points out with the _maito_ line).


----------

