# Estonian: passive voice



## jonquiliser

And another one...! The possibilities of using the passive voice in Estonian. 

Examples:

How is X said [in language Y]? (cf. "how do you say...")

One must learn through one's errors.

The country was torn to pieces.

The text was translated by a professional translator.


Now, this is a bit complicated, because really I'm more interested in how Estonian differs or is similar to Finnish (and not English) on this point, but I assume English will be known by more people. And as I know fuck-all about linguistics, and grammar terms have faded away from my memory, I couldn't really give good accounts of the Finnish uses..  

And as always, aitäh


----------



## suslik

Kuidas sa ütled X Y keeles? - How do you say X in language Y?
Kuidas sa ütled puu hispaania keeles? - how do you say tree in spanish language?

(I'm sorry, but I don't understand this "One must learn through one's errors". Can I say it that "Have to learn from your own mistakes"?)
Tuleb õppida oma vigadest - have to learn from your own mistakes

Riik oli lõhestatud tükkideks - The country was torn to pieces.

Tekst oli tõlgitud professionaalse tõlkija poolt. - The text was translated by a professional translator

I hope it helped you (ma loodan, et see aitas sind)
Võta heaks


----------



## DrWatson

I think what jonquiliser was after is the passive, ie. "fourth person", Estonian and Finnish both have those. 

So "How do you say tree in Spanish?" is perhaps like this: "Kuidas üteldakse puu hispaania keeles?" I'm not sure about this though, I'm working on a dictionary, Google and my logic here.

The country was torn to pieces - Riik lõhestati tükkideks confused

Estonians, is my logic working? Does this make sense?


----------



## halfminded

DrWatson said:


> I think what jonquiliser was after is the passive, ie. "fourth person", Estonian and Finnish both have those.
> 
> So "How do you say tree in Spanish?" is perhaps like this: "Kuidas üteldakse puu hispaania keeles?" I'm not sure about this though, I'm working on a dictionary, Google and my logic here.
> 
> The country was torn to pieces - Riik lõhestati tukkideks confused
> 
> Estonians, is my logic working? Does this make sense?



Yup, your logic makes sense..though- the sentence *"riik oli  lõhestatud **tükkideks**"* is in passive too just like your sentence... (not to mention that this whole sentence seems a bit wierd to me..wouldn`t it be better to say "riik oli killustunud"...but grammatically the both two versions are correct..but the meanings are bit different..For example, when someone is talking about 19th century and says that "riik lõhestati tükkideks", then this means that on that very century the country was torn to pieces...when he/she says that "riik oli lõhestatud tükkideks", then this refers that it had happened before...)
And- "*Kuidas üteldakse (*or* "öeldakse") puu hispaania keeles?* ("arbol", right?)
Grammatically everything seems correct..Well done, Dr Watson!


----------



## suslik

DrWatson said:


> I think what jonquiliser was after is the passive, ie. "fourth person", Estonian and Finnish both have those.
> 
> So "How do you say tree in Spanish?" is perhaps like this: "Kuidas ütledakse puu hispaania keeles?" I'm not sure about this though, I'm working on a dictionary, Google and my logic here.
> 
> The country was torn to pieces - Riik lõhestati tukkideks confused
> 
> Estonians, is my logic working? Does this make sense?


 
Yes, DrWatson, you are right with this "Kuidas öeldakse puu hispaania keeles?". I translated it directly and didn't think about this passive form. 
But what do u think about this "One must learn through one's errors"?
Is this right what I guessed?


----------



## DrWatson

"One must learn through one's errors" -  Tuleb õppida oma vigadest

If I understand correctly, *tuleb* is in 3rd person singular, right? Well, in Finnish we have a similar construction: "*Tulee oppia omista virheistään*", where *tulee* is also 3rd pers. sing., but still a kind of a passive since there's no actual person indicated. If you wanted to say "He has to learn through his errors", you'd get "*Hänen tulee oppia omista virheistään*".

I'm not Estonian, of course, but this seems logical to me.


----------



## suslik

ok, then I was right about it. And yes, *tuleb* is 3rd person singular.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

In order to form Passive Past Participle, you take the -ma ending off the verb and add -tud, with Present Participle change -ma for -tav.


----------



## jonquiliser

Ha! Super! Aitas mind palju! And thanks DrWatson for mentioning the fourth person - never heard the term (or I gloriously forgot it ) but it's the kind of structure I was after! My best friend, wiki, mentions it. So using the fourth person structure + transitivity gives "ongelma ratkaistiin" (the problem was solved by someone), or 4-p + 'anticausativity' gives "ongelma ratkesi". (Wiki's examples - although I wonder, does this mean there are different verbs in Estonian as well, expressing the difference? I.e. ratkaista/ratketa).

So let's see if I got this right: does the phrase "Kuidas ütledakse puu hispaania keeles" correspond to the Finnish "miten *sanotaan*..."? And: If ütle/ma is the infinitive, /da/kse is the conjugated part? What exactly is this then, how is it formed? I know that rääkita -> räägitakse. Does this mean elama->elatakse; õppima->õpitakse, olema->oletakse? (Or is the (parallell?) forms -here ütleda- used? I'm starting to see a pattern now; there's the d/t-akse in each case..). And saying this in the past? (Finnish sanottiin) (I'm being a pain now, I know ) 

And one more question, what is the difference between  "üteldakse" and "öeldakse"? (I can't figure out the infinitive of the latter so I don't find it in the dictionary..)

Ja küllap, "arbol" on õige 
Palju palju aitäh kõikile


----------



## suslik

jonquiliser said:


> Ha! Super! Aitas mind palju! And thanks DrWatson for mentioning the fourth person - never heard the term (or I gloriously forgot it ) but it's the kind of structure I was after! My best friend, wiki, mentions it. So using the fourth person structure + transitivity gives "ongelma ratkaistiin" (the problem was solved by someone), or 4-p + 'anticausativity' gives "ongelma ratkesi". (Wiki's examples - although I wonder, does this mean there are different verbs in Estonian as well, expressing the difference? I.e. ratkaista/ratketa).
> 
> So let's see if I got this right: does the phrase "Kuidas ütledakse puu hispaania keeles" correspond to the Finnish "miten *sanotaan*..."? And: If ütle/ma is the infinitive, /da/kse is the conjugated part? What exactly is this then, how is it formed? I know that rääkima -> räägitakse. Does this mean elama->elatakse; õppima->õpitakse, olema->oldakse? (Or is the (parallell?) forms -here ütleda(öelda)- used? I'm starting to see a pattern now; there's the d/t-akse in each case..). And saying this in the past? (Finnish sanottiin) (I'm being a pain now, I know )
> 
> And one more question, what is the difference between "üteldakse" and "öeldakse"? (I can't figure out the infinitive of the latter so I don't find it in the dictionary..)
> 
> Ja küllap, "arbol" on õige
> Palju palju aitäh kõigile


 
I know that word* üteldakse *is wrong, I know that you can't use it, but I don't know why. It's just that word *öeldakse* comes from word *ütlema.*


----------



## DrWatson

jonquiliser said:


> And saying this in the past? (Finnish sanottiin) (I'm being a pain now, I know )


If in my previous example *lõhestama* -> *lõhestati*, then I guess it's:
*ütlema* -> *öeldi
rääkima -> rääkiti
olema -> oldi
*And according to my dictionary *ütlema* is more like *ilmaista* in Finnish, but roughly the same as *sanoa*.



jonquiliser said:


> 4-p + 'anticausativity' gives "ongelma ratkesi". (Wiki's examples - although I wonder, does this mean there are different verbs in Estonian as well, expressing the difference? I.e. ratkaista/ratketa).


I checked some dictionary entries, and there are similar differentiation of anticausative and transitive verbs in Estonian. E.g. "to destroy" or "tuhota, hajottaa" is *hajutama*, but "to be destroyed" or "tuhoutua, hajota" is *hajuma*.

So based on this, ma arvan et :
Rakennus hajotettiin - *Ehitus hajutati*
Rakennus hajosi - *Ehitus hajus*


----------



## suslik

DrWatson said:


> If in my previous example *lõhestama* -> *lõhestati*, then I guess it's:
> *ütlema* -> *öeldi*
> *rääkima -> räägiti*
> *olema -> oldi*
> And according to my dictionary *ütlema* is more like *ilmaista* in Finnish, but roughly the same as *sanoa*.
> 
> 
> I checked some dictionary entries, and there are similar differentiation of anticausative and transitive verbs in Estonian. E.g. "to destroy" or "tuhota, hajottaa" is *hajutama*, but "to be destroyed" or "tuhoutua, hajota" is *hajuma*.
> 
> So based on this, ma arvan et :
> Rakennus hajotettiin - *Ehitis*(do you mean building?)* hajutati*
> Rakennus hajosi - *Ehitus hajus*


 
You are quite good in Estonian
but word *hajutama* means to scatter, to dispel.
If I would say that "building was destroyed" then I would say " ehitis hävitati" or "ehitis lammutati"


----------



## DrWatson

suslik said:


> You are quite good in Estonian
> but word *hajutama* means to scatter, to dispel.
> If I would say that "building was destroyed" then I would say " ehitis hävitati" or "ehitis lammutati"


Thanks ! Man, this dictionary of mine has proven to be not so good a few times already: it claims building is *ehitus* . I should probably get a real dictionary instead of the electronic ones... And when I'm on it, why not in the same time start studying Estonian .

So if "Ehitis hävitati" is one, is the another example "Ehitis hävis"?


----------



## suslik

I can give you one good dictionary what I'm using myself all the time
http://aare.pri.ee/dictionary.html?switch=en

"Ehitis hävis" means also that the building was destroyed
for example: "ehitis hävis tules" - the building was destroyed in fire

and the word *ehitus* means building, that is not yet finished. The workmen are still building it. I think in English it would be word *construction.*


----------



## jonquiliser

Aha, great, now the past tense is settled! Now I'll sleep well  

I guess "öeldakse" must simply be an irregular form..?

Jah aitäh vihjest, see sõnaraamat looks good.


----------



## halfminded

suslik said:


> I know that word* üteldakse *is wrong, I know that you can't use it, but I don't know why. It's just that word *öeldakse* comes from word *ütlema.*



Actually it isn`t wrong..it is also right. It`s a parallel-form and very rarely used (which doesn`t make it wrong)...


and *olema---ollakse* (and not _oldakse_) 

Just to let you know!

P.S Do you guys ever get some sleep?


----------



## DrWatson

suslik said:


> I can give you one good dictionary what I'm using myself all the time
> http://aare.pri.ee/dictionary.html?switch=en
> 
> and the word *ehitus* means building, that is not yet finished. The workmen are still building it. I think in English it would be word *construction.*


Thanks for the dictionary and for explaining the ehitus-ehitis difference . I get that now.



halfminded said:


> Actually it isn`t wrong..it is also right. It`s a parallel-form and very rarely used (which doesn`t make it wrong)...


Interesting to know this one too.



halfminded said:


> P.S Do you guys ever get some sleep?


I do, at least, don't know about the others, though . Besides, it was just midnight and I'm on summer holiday. Ma võin magada keskpäevani, kui ma tahan


----------



## suslik

halfminded said:


> Actually it isn`t wrong..it is also right. It`s a parallel-form and very rarely used (which doesn`t make it wrong)...
> 
> 
> and *olema---ollakse* (and not _oldakse_)
> 
> Just to let you know!
> 
> P.S Do you guys ever get some sleep?


 
ok, thanks for correcting my mistakes
well, I don't know if those finnish guys sleep or not, but I went to sleep at 10pm yesterday in my time
and now when it's about 10am I woke up, so I think I got a big sleep


----------

