# partitive/accusative = present/future?



## Gavril

Iltaa,

I think that the accusative/partitive distinction can also serve to distinguish between a present-tense action and a future action:

_Luen kirjaa. _"I'm reading the book (right now)."
_Luen kirjan. _"I will read the book (at some point in the future)."

If there are no further contextual clues (such as a word like _huomenna_ or a phrase like _tällä aikaa_), would these be the normal interpretations of the two Finnish sentences above?

As far as I know, the only "present-tense" interpretation of _Luen kirjan _would be "I read a book (every day, every month, etc.)". But, _Luen kirjaa _could mean "I'll read some of the book" given the appropriate context (e.g., a word such as _huomenna_ or _tulevaisuudessa_), correct?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

I see nothing wrong with your argumentation.

GOM


----------



## akana

How does this work for existential sentences? Can you use the partitive in existential sentences as a way of indicating the present tense? 

_Siitä tulee isompaa (katsoessani sitä).
Siitä tulee isompi (tulevaisuudessa)._

I feel like I've seen similar examples with the partitive, but I couldn't find them. I did see this one recently...

_Talosta ei tule tukevaa._

But I think that must be because of the negative?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Without context, and expert knowledge, I can only say that I cannot think of a situation in which _Siitä tulee isompaa_ would work.  I'm not saying that it is absolutely wrong, though. _Siitä tulee isompi_ sounds very natural and there are countless situations in which it is applicable.

_Talosta ei tule tukeva/tukevaa_ may both be officially correct. My ear accepts both of them, but my ear isn't Kielitoimisto!

GOM


----------



## Gavril

akana said:


> How does this work for existential sentences? Can you use the partitive in existential sentences as a way of indicating the present tense?
> 
> _Siitä tulee isompaa (katsoessani sitä).
> Siitä tulee isompi (tulevaisuudessa)._
> 
> I feel like I've seen similar examples with the partitive, but I couldn't find them. I did see this one recently...
> 
> _Talosta ei tule tukevaa._
> 
> But I think that must be because of the negative?



All three of your examples have an adjective rather than a noun in the predicate, and it might be more common to use the translative case with an adjective following _tulla_: i.e.,
_
Se tulee isomma*ksi *katsoessani sitä/tulevaisuudessa _(as opposed to _Siitä tulee isompi_)
_Se tulee/ei tule tukevamma*ksi*

_What about when the predicate is a noun?

Could you say, for example,
_
Toukasta tulee perhos*ta*
_
"The caterpillar is turning into a butterfly (as we speak)"

but,

_Toukasta tulee perho*nen* 
_
"The caterpillar will turn into a butterfly"


----------



## reamary

Gavril said:


> What about when the predicate is a noun?
> 
> Could you say, for example,
> _
> Toukasta tulee perhos*ta*
> _
> "The caterpillar is turning into a butterfly (as we speak)"
> 
> but,
> 
> _Toukasta tulee perho*nen*
> _
> "The caterpillar will turn into a butterfly"



The first one, "_Toukasta tulee perhosta_" is an incorrect form. If you want to say that the caterpillar is turning into a butterfly as we speak, you should say _Toukasta *on tulossa* perhonen_. So it works differently when the predicate is a noun. The second phrase is ok.


----------

