# raha(t), sähkö(t)



## Gavril

Hyvää päivää taas,

In informal or spoken Finnish, plural forms such as _rahat _and _sähköt_ often seem to be used in a different way than they would be used in the standard written language. (In fact, I'm not sure if _rahat _or _sähköt _would ever be used in literary Finnish.)

I'm still not clear on the semantics of _rahat_, _sähköt _and similar forms: can you tell me whether they would be acceptable (by the standards of informal Finnish) in the contexts below, or whether the singular form would be a better option?


_Pöydällä oli rahaa joka siihen asti en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tiliini. Otin rahan / rahat taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kodista._

_En voinut harjoittaa koskettimien soittoa, kun sähkö / sähköt oli(vat) poikki._

_Näetteköhän tuota patoa? Sitä käytetään kehittämään sähköä / sähköjä_ _lähellä oleville kaupungeille._

A: _Ostin juuri myymälästä maitoa ja keksejä._
B: _Mihin laitoit maidon / maidot? Jääkaappiin?_


Unlike _sähköt _and _rahat, _I've never heard the form _maidot _used in this sort of context, but I wrote the last example to see whether there is a pattern here that applies to all mass nouns (i.e., nouns referring to things that don't come in discrete units, like _vesi, maito, sähkö _etc.).

Kiitoksia paljon!


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

_Pöydällä oli rahaa joka siihen asti en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tiliini. Otin rahan / rahat taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kodista.

_I find both "rahan" and "rahat" acceptable but "rahan" indicates that there was only one bill/banknote on the table, a 100-euro bill, for example_._There are some minor problems in the sentence. "Siihen asti" doesn't sound natural and is totally unnecessary anyway.  I would say:_ Pöydällä oli rahaa, *jota* en ollut ehtinyt tallettaa tili*lleni*.  *Panin* rahat taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin *kotoa*. _"Kodista" gives me the impression that I was in someone else's home, not my own._

En voinut harjoittaa koskettimien soittoa, kun sähkö / sähköt oli(vat) poikki.

_The plural "sähköt" seems to be used even in formal contexts by news anchors, for instance. I don't know how acceptable it is officially.  Newspapers also use it regularly. "Soittaa koskettimia" is something I have never heard, though.  "En voinut soittaa kosketinsoitinta" may look a bit clumsy but it might be a better choice.

_Näetteköhän tuota patoa? Sitä käytetään kehittämään sähköä / sähköjä_ _lähellä oleville kaupungeille.

_My ear accepts only the singular "sähköä" in this context.

A: _Ostin juuri myymälästä maitoa ja keksejä._
B: _Mihin laitoit maidon / maidot? Jääkaappiin?_

No doubt "maidon" is the normal choice.  "Maidot" occurs in informal Finnish to indicate that there were several bottles or cartons of milk. I would say: _Jääkaappiin*ko?*_


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> _Pöydällä oli rahaa joka siihen asti en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tiliini. Otin rahan / rahat taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kodista.
> 
> _I find both "rahan" and "rahat" acceptable but "rahan" indicates that there was only one bill/banknote on the table, a 100-euro bill, for example_._



Would these sentences work with either _rahoja _and _rahaa _in the first sentence, and _rahat _in the second? I.e.,

_Pöydällä oli rahaa / rahoja, jota en ollut ehtinyt tallettaa tililleni. Panin __rahat taskuuni ...
__



			En voinut harjoittaa koskettimien soittoa, kun sähkö / sähköt oli(vat) poikki.
		
Click to expand...

_


> The plural "sähköt" seems to be used even in formal contexts by news anchors, for instance. I don't know how acceptable it is officially.  Newspapers also use it regularly.



Would it be equally acceptable to use the singular _sähkö _in the above sentence, or would it suggest a different meaning?

Unfortunately, your answers have made me more curious.  When you have a chance, can you tell me whether the plural would be acceptable in these sentences?

_Täytin kylpyammeen vedellä_, _mutta upotettuani jalan_ _ammeeseen tajusin, että __vedet / vesi_ _oli(vat)__ aivan liian kuumaa / kuumoja._

_Saavuttuani kotiin rannalta huomasin, että __kengät olivat täynnä hiekkaa, siis kaadoin hiekan / hiekat takapihaan._


Kiitos vielä kerran


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

"_Pöydällä oli rahaa / rahoja, jota en ollut ehtinyt tallettaa tililleni. Panin __rahat taskuuni ..."

_Both versions are fine. "Rahoja" indicates individual bills and coins, "rahaa" refers to a total amount. I don't think people actually say "rahoja" very often but I see nothing wrong with it.

In my opinion one could say "sähkö oli poikki" but the fact is that nobody does!  For some mysterious reason the plural is nearly always used.  I don't know why. I guess it's just idiomatic Finnish.  There wouldn't be a difference in meaning.

"_Täytin kylpyammeen vedellä_, _mutta upotettuani jalan_ _ammeeseen tajusin, että __vedet / vesi_ _oli(vat)__ aivan liian kuumaa / kuumoja."

_Only the singular is possible here.  Furthermore, "kuumoja" isn't a correct form. "Kuumia" would be correct in other contexts:_ Nakit olivat aivan liian kuumia.

"__Saavuttuani kotiin rannalta huomasin, että __kengät olivat täynnä hiekkaa, siis kaadoin hiekan / hiekat takapihaan."

_Even a native speaker might utter the sentence above even though I find it somewhat incorrect and/or unnatural.  There's nothing wrong with the first two clauses but "siis kaadoin hiekat takapihaan" jars in my ear.  I wouldn't use "hiekat" here but some others might. Also, "takapihalle" is a better choice in my opinion.  I would probably say:_ "tyhjensin kengät/kenkäni takapihalle"._


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> _
> "__Saavuttuani kotiin rannalta huomasin, että __kengät olivat täynnä hiekkaa, siis kaadoin hiekan / hiekat takapihaan."
> 
> _Even a native speaker might utter the sentence above even though I find it somewhat incorrect and/or unnatural.  There's nothing wrong with the first two clauses but "siis kaadoin hiekat takapihaan" jars in my ear.



Darn it, that's the part of the sentence I was interested in!  I'll have to think of something else:

_Saavuttuani kotiin rannalta huomasin, että kengät olivat täynnä hiekkaa, siis tyhjensin kengät kukkapenkille ja sekoitin hiekan / hiekat multaan._


----------



## MaijaPoppanen

Second opinion:



Gavril said:


> _Pöydällä oli rahaa joka siihen asti en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tiliini. Otin rahan / rahat taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kodista. _


Since you have used partitive case _rahaa _in the first sentence_, _it doesn't sound natural to say _rahan_ in the second sentence.
So:
Pöydällä oli rahaa, jota en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tililleni. Otin rahat/osan rahoista taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kotoa. (Undetermined amount of money)
Pöydällä oli raha, jota en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tililleni. Otin rahan taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kotoa. (One bill or coin)
Pöydällä oli rahat, joita en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tililleni. Otin ne taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kotoa. (Undetermined amount of money)


Gavril said:


> _En voinut harjoittaa koskettimien soittoa, kun sähkö / sähköt oli(vat) poikki._


I would say: En voinut harjoitella koskettimien soittoa, kun/koska sähkö(t) oli(vat) poikki. (If "the question" is Why didn't you practise... then you should use _koska)

_


Gavril said:


> Näetteköhän tuota patoa? Sitä käytetään kehittämään sähköä / sähköjä _lähellä oleville kaupungeille._


You should use verb _tuottaa_ here.
Näettekö tuon padon? Sitä käytetään tuottamaan sähköä läheisiin kaupunkeihin.



Gavril said:


> A: _Ostin juuri myymälästä maitoa ja keksejä._
> B: _Mihin laitoit maidon / maidot? Jääkaappiin?_


 I would definitely use the form _maidot _if there were more than one cartons of milk, but I don't know if it's acceptable or not.


Gavril said:


> _Pöydällä oli rahaa / rahoja, jota / joita en ollut ehtinyt tallettaa tililleni. Panin rahat taskuuni ... _


I my opinion they are both gramatically correct, but the first one sounds better. 



Gavril said:


> _Täytin kylpyammeen vedellä_, _mutta upotettuani jalan_ _ammeeseen tajusin, että __vedet / vesi_ _oli(vat)__ aivan liian kuumaa / kuumoja. _


Täytin kylpyammeen vedellä, mutta upotettuani jalan ammeeseen tajusin, että vesi oli aivan liian kuumaa.
But you can say for example: _Tähän aikaan vuodesta vedet ovat jo kylmiä. _Meaning that the water in the lakes is cold.


Gavril said:


> _Saavuttuani kotiin rannalta huomasin, että kengät olivat täynnä hiekkaa, siis kaadoin hiekan / hiekat takapihaan. _


Again, (I think the language police is knocking on my door) I would use the form _hiekat_ but there is nothing wrong with the form _hiekan_ either. (joten kaadoin hiekat takapihalle) There is some unnatural repetition _hiekkaa-hiekat, _so I would use some other construction like _...huomasin että kenkäni olivat täynnä hiekkaa, joten tyhjensin ne takapihalle.
_Edit: Ups! GOM ehtikin jo tyhjentämään ne


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

I would prefer the singular "hiekan" but "I'm sure many people would say "hiekat".


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

MaijaPoppanen said:


> You should use verb _tuottaa_ here.
> Näettekö tuon padon? Sitä käytetään tuottamaan sähköä läheisiin kaupunkeihin.


Of course!  I pay too much attention to the points Gavril mentions and fail to see glaring unidiomatic words and expressions.


----------



## MaijaPoppanen

Grumpy Old Man said:


> I would prefer the singular "hiekan" but "I'm sure many people would say "hiekat".


 I'm one of them . I would also say _...tyhjensin kengät kukkapenk*kiin*...
_ _Tyhjentää takapiha*lle*_  It's (usually) quite large area.
_Tyhjentää kukkapenkk*iin *_It's small determined area.


----------



## Gavril

MaijaPoppanen said:


> Second opinion:
> 
> Since you have used partitive case _rahaa _in the first sentence_, _it doesn't sound natural to say _rahan_ in the second sentence.
> So:
> Pöydällä oli rahaa, jota en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tililleni. Otin rahat/osan rahoista taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kotoa. (Undetermined amount of money)



Just out of curiosity, is this pattern acceptable in literary (i.e.,  "textbook") Finnish? My understanding was that you aren't supposed to switch between  singular and plural like this (_rahaa : rahat_), even if it's commonly done in the spoken language.



> Pöydällä oli raha, jota en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tililleni. Otin rahan taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kotoa. (One bill or coin)
> Pöydällä oli rahat, joita en ollut ehtinyt tallettamaan tililleni. Otin ne taskuuni ennen kuin lähdin kotoa. (Undetermined amount of money)



I thought that the use of the nominative in the first sentence (_pöydällä oli *rahat*_) would mean that there was a determinate amount of money on the table, or at least that the money had been referred to earlier. How would the meaning be different if you said _pöydällä oli rahoja_?



> I would say: En voinut harjoitella koskettimien soittoa, kun/koska sähkö(t) oli(vat) poikki. (If "the question" is Why didn't you practise... then you should use _koska)
> _



Do you think that the plural is commonly used for public services like electricity, water etc.? The phrase _vedet on poikki_ brings up thousands of results on Google, even though _vesi on poikki_ seems to be more common.

I tried to look up a phrase meaning "the gas (service) is off", but I'm not sure what the most common word for "gas" is in this case.



> Again, (I think the language police is knocking on my door) I would use the form _hiekat_ but there is nothing wrong with the form _hiekan_ either. (joten kaadoin hiekat takapihalle) There is some unnatural repetition _hiekkaa-hiekat, _so I would use some other construction like _...huomasin että kenkäni olivat täynnä hiekkaa, joten tyhjensin ne takapihalle.
> _Edit: Ups! GOM ehtikin jo tyhjentämään ne



This might be hard to determine, but do you think that the plural (_hiekat_) is motivated by the image of multiple grains of sand?

Sorry for all the questions, but as you can see, this topic really interests me.


----------



## MaijaPoppanen

Gavril said:


> Just out of curiosity, is this pattern acceptable in literary (i.e., "textbook") Finnish? My understanding was that you can't switch between singular and plural like this (_rahaa : rahat_), even if it's commonly done in the spoken language.


I think it is acceptable. If you say _rahaa : rahan_ it gives an impression that you took only one bill or coin and if you say _rahaa : rahaa_ it gives an impression that you took only part of the money.




Gavril said:


> I thought that the use of the nominative in the first sentence (_pöydällä oli *rahat*_) would mean that there was a determinate amount of money on the table, or at least that the money had been referred to earlier. How would the meaning be different if you said _pöydällä oli rahoja_?


Oooops. You're right. If you say _pöydällä oli rahoja, _it means "there was some money..."




Gavril said:


> Do you think that the plural is commonly used for public services like electricity, water etc.? The phrase _vedet on poikki_ brings up thousands of results on Google, even though _vesi on poikki_ seems to be more common.
> 
> I tried to look up a phrase meaning "the gas (service) is off", but I'm not sure what the most common word for "gas" is in this case.



At least in spoken language it's very common to use forms _vedet_ and _sähköt _(but not _kaasut_). In written language it varies, but I would use singular form.



Gavril said:


> This might be hard to determine, but do you think that the plural (_hiekat_) is motivated by the image of multiple grains of sand?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions, but as you can see, this topic really interests me.


 I think the motivation comes from an idea that I got rid of all the sand. _Kaadoin vedet saappaasta ja jatkoin matkaa. Jne. _This probably isn't accepted by the purists (at least in written language). NP


----------



## Gavril

MaijaPoppanen said:


> I think the motivation comes from an idea that I got rid of all the sand. _Kaadoin vedet saappaasta ja jatkoin matkaa. Jne. _This probably isn't accepted by the purists (at least in written language). NP



I thought (I'm not correcting you, of course) that the idea of "all the water / sand / ..." was conveyed by the accusative singular (_veden, hiekan _etc.) rather than the plural -- would _Kaadoin veden saappaasta _mean something different to you than _Kaadoin vedet saappaasta_?

I wonder whether, for some Finnish speakers, the plural form functions in certain contexts (like the above sentences with _hiekat / vedet_) as a marker of definiteness? Thus, _hiekkaa_ : _hiekat_ would roughly correspond (in the above sentences and similar contexts) to "some sand" : "the sand", _vettä : vedet _to "some water" : "the water", and so on. Do you think there's any truth to this idea?


----------



## MaijaPoppanen

Gavril said:


> I thought (I'm not correcting you, of course) that the idea of "all the water / sand / ..." was conveyed by the accusative singular (_veden, hiekan _etc.) rather than the plural


Well, of course you and everyone else can correct me if I'm wrong (and usually I am). 


Gavril said:


> would _Kaadoin veden saappaasta _mean something different to you than _Kaadoin vedet saappaasta_?


No, I would say (again, just my opinion) _Kaadoin *vedet* saappaasta_... just gives a stronger image of that it's really all the water. Anyway, in formal texts I would probably use singular _veden, hiekan, sokerin _etc.


Gavril said:


> I wonder whether, for some Finnish speakers, the plural form functions in certain contexts (like the above sentences with _hiekat / vedet_) as a marker of definiteness? Thus, _hiekkaa_ : _hiekat_ would roughly correspond (in some contexts) to "some sand" : "the sand", _vettä : vedet _to "some water" : "the water", and so on. Do you think there's anything to this idea?


Yes, that can be true.


----------

