# -van / -massa / -essa



## Gavril

Päivää taas,

Is there a difference of meaning between the three sentences below? Or would not all three be acceptable in Finnish?

_Näin hänet ottamassa rahoja pankkiautomaatista_.

_Näin hänen ottavan rahoja pankkiautomaatista.

Näin hänet ottaessaan rahoja pankkiautomaatista.


_​Kiitos!


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

My ear accepts the first two sentences only.


----------



## kirahvi

The problem with the third sentence is that the second infinitive (if I remember the name of this form correctly...) always has to agree with the subject of the sentence and with the third sentence that isn't the case.

_Näin hänet ottamassa / Näin hänet, kun hän otti rahoja pankkiautomaatista._
I saw him taking / I saw him, when *he* was etc.

_Näin hänet ottaessani / Näin hänet, kun otin rahoja pankkiautomaatista._
I saw him, when *I* was etc.


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> My ear accepts the first two sentences only.



Are the first two sentences synonymous (_Näin hänet ottamassa rahoja_ and _Näin hänen ottavan rahoja_), or are there any nuances differentiating them?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> Are the first two sentences synonymous (_Näin hänet ottamassa rahoja_ and _Näin hänen ottavan rahoja_),


Yes.


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> Are the first two sentences synonymous (
> _Näin hänet ottamassa rahoja_ and _Näin hänen ottavan rahoja_), or are there any nuances differentiating them?


There's a slight difference:
_Näin hänet ottamassa rahoja... _I saw him there but I didn't necessarily see the money.
_Näin hänen ottavan rahoja..._ I saw that he really took money.

You can also say:
_Näin hänet *hänen ottaessaan* rahoja pankkiautomaatista._


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> There's a slight difference:
> _Näin hänet ottamassa rahoja... _I saw him there but I didn't necessarily see the money.



But, you must have at least seen him in the process of withdrawing money -- otherwise, how would you know enough to say _ottamassa rahoja _in the first place?


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> But, you must have at least seen him in the process of withdrawing money -- otherwise, how would you know enough to say _ottamassa rahoja _in the first place?


I saw him at the ATM, so I guessed he was withdrawing money although I didn't actually see it.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

What I have wondered about all along is the plural "rahoja" instead of "rahaa".  Of course it's correct Finnish but it does imply that a specific amount of money is being discussed. One gets the impression that a word has been omitted, such as: _Näin hänet ottamassa *[niitä]* rahoja pankkiautomaatista. _Perhaps he had promised to pay me back the 200 euros he owed me, and I saw him withdraw the 200 from an ATM.
I don't think a Finn would say:_ Lähden ottamaan *rahoja* pankkiautomaatista _if he just felt he needed some cash.I would say:_ Lähden ottamaan *rahaa* pankkiautomaatista.
_


----------

