# on saamassa tilauksen



## Gavril

Heipps,

Tänään uutisoitiin, että



> Meyer Turku on saamassa tilauksen kahden risteilijän rakentamisesta



Nähdäkseni ei sanottu "saa tilauksen" koska tilaus ei ole vielä vahvistettu (mikä selviää myöhemmin artikkelissa), mutta silti en ymmärrä, miksi kirjoitettiin "on saamassa tilauksen" eikä "saa tilausta" -- olisiko tämä tarkoittanut jotakin erilaista?

En ymmärrä myöskään, miksi kirjoitettiin "on saamassa tilauks*en*" eikä "... tilaus*ta*" jos tapahtuma on vielä kesken. Auttaisitteko selventämään asiaa?

Kiitos

----(English: )----

In the above quote (from a news article), it seems that the writer wrote "on saamassa tilauksen" and not "saa tilauksen" because this order (_tilaus_) has not been confirmed yet, as is explained later in the article. But why didn't the writer say "saa tilausta" -- would that have meant something different from "on saamassa tilausken"?

Also, if the process is still incomplete, why did the writer use the total-object case (_tilauksen_) and not the partitive (_tilausta_)?


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> In the above quote (from a news article), it seems that the writer wrote "on saamassa tilauksen" and not "saa tilauksen" because this order (_tilaus_) has not been confirmed yet, as is explained later in the article. But why didn't the writer say "saa tilausta" -- would that have meant something different from "on saamassa tilausken"?



In this context, “saamassa tilausta” would not be Finnish (it would be “kielenvastainen”, as opposite to just grammatically incorrect; “kielenvastainen” is something not in the language, i.e. a native speaker would not use such an expression except by some mistake that he would admit as a mistake when it has been pointed out).

The “why” part is more complicated, and a very good question, like all of your questions have been.

In its basic use, the inessive of the MA infinitive, or the III infinitive as it was traditionally called, means “in the process of...”. So “Olen ostamassa autoa” means “I am in the process of buying a car, I am buying a car”, for example when describing what I am doing right now, typically discussing with a car dealer. By its nature, it indicates an ongoing but so far uncompleted process (even though perhaps with a firm intention of completing it). This explains why the partitive is used as the case of the object.

But there is different use for the inessive of the MA infinitive, involving a “total” object, i.e. an object in the genitive, nominative, or accusative case. It was a bit difficult to find a description of thin in _Iso suomen kielioppi_, but I eventually found § 1520 _Olla tekemässä_ -verbiliitto ja tapahtuman ennakoiminen. It gives a rather complicated description, but the point is that when used with a total object, _olla tekemässä_ refers to an action or event that is expected to take place soon.

Thus, as opposite to expressions like _olen kirjoittamassa kirjettä_ (I am writing a letter), indicating an ongoing process, an expression with a total object, like _olen saamassa häneltä kirjeen_ (I am about to get a letter from him/her), indicates an expected event in the near future.



> Also, if the process is still incomplete, why did the writer use the total-object case (_tilauksen_) and not the partitive (_tilausta_)?



In general, _on saamassa tilauksen_ does not necessary involve any process. It could refer to an expected punctual event of simply getting an order, though it would need to be based on something that makes such an expectation realistic. There is typically some process that forms such a base, but getting an order is an expected future event.


----------



## Gavril

Terve FF,



fennofiili said:


> But there is different use for the inessive of the MA infinitive, involving a “total” object, i.e. an object in the genitive, nominative, or accusative case. It was a bit difficult to find a description of thin in _Iso suomen kielioppi_, but I eventually found § 1520 _Olla tekemässä_ -verbiliitto ja tapahtuman ennakoiminen. It gives a rather complicated description, but the point is that when used with a total object, _olla tekemässä_ refers to an action or event that is expected to take place soon.



How do you interpret the _olla tekemässä_ construction if the verb is intransitive, and therefore the distinction between partial/total object is not present? 

If I understand your linked page correctly, the answer seems to have to do with whether the the verb is punctual (e.g. _nukahtaa_) or durative (e.g. _nukkua_): thus _Hän on nukahtamassa_ would mean "He is going to fall asleep soon", whereas _Hän on nukkumassa_ could mean either "He is going to sleep soon" or simply "He is sleeping" depending on the context. Would that explanation work?


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> How do you interpret the _olla tekemässä_ construction if the verb is intransitive, and therefore the distinction between partial/total object is not present?



In the absence of an object, both interpretations are possible. However, often the context and content makes only one interpretation feasible. For example, _joukkue on putoamassa kolmanneksi_ could be interpreted as “the team is about to fall down to the third place” (i.e. is expected to fall soon) or “the team is falling down to the third place” as something that is actually happening right now. An expression like _olin nukkumassa_ can mean only “I was sleeping”, since sleeping is continuous action. In contrast, _olin nukahtamassa_ is most naturally interpreted as “I was just about to fall asleep”, since falling asleep is normally understood as a momentaneous event. So the phrase means about the same as olin nukahtamaisillani, which is mostly a literary expression.



> If I understand your linked page correctly, the answer seems to have to do with whether the the verb is punctual (e.g. _nukahtaa_) or durative (e.g. _nukkua_): thus _Hän on nukahtamassa_ would mean "He is going to fall asleep soon", whereas _Hän on nukkumassa_ could mean either "He is going to sleep soon" or simply "He is sleeping" depending on the context. Would that explanation work?



The meaning of the verb is indeed important, especially its punctual vs. durative nature. But I would say that _Hän on nukkumassa_ can only mean “He is sleeping”. Instead, we can say e.g. _Hän on menossa nukkumaan_.


----------



## Gavril

fennofiili said:


> In the absence of an object, both interpretations are possible. However, often the context and content makes only one interpretation feasible. For example, _joukkue on putoamassa kolmanneksi_ could be interpreted as “the team is about to fall down to the third place” (i.e. is expected to fall soon) or “the team is falling down to the third place” as something that is actually happening right now. An expression like _olin nukkumassa_ can mean only “I was sleeping”, since sleeping is continuous action.



I don't think I understand the distinction you're drawing between _nukkumassa_ and _puotamassa_. Falling is also a continuous action, or at least it is not necessarily a punctual action -- otherwise you couldn't be "in the middle" of doing it (as in the sentence "the team is falling down to third place"). Can you clarify?

(I'll venture a guess here: does it have to do with the fact that falling tends to be a telic action -- i.e. an action with a defined ending point -- whereas sleeping usually isn't seen as telic?)

Kiitos vielä kerran


----------



## Gavril

Gavril said:


> (I'll venture a guess here: does it have to do with the fact that falling tends to be a telic action -- i.e. an action with a defined ending point -- whereas sleeping usually isn't seen as telic?)



In other words, when you said that sleeping is a continuous action, did you mean that it is atelic (= it doesn't have a defined end point)?

Kiitos


----------



## fennofiili

Gavril said:


> In other words, when you said that sleeping is a continuous action, did you mean that it is atelic (= it doesn't have a defined end point)?



Sorry for my delayed response; I had a surgery the 1st of April (no kidding), and I’m still convalescing, and my mind is somewhat blurry.

I wasn’t thinking in terms of atelic verbs, even though Iso suomen kielioppi uses such concepts. Rather, sleeping is a state, whereas falling asleep or falling from a chair or falling in love is an event, a change of state. It is true that a change of state can be considered as a process, so that you can refer to someone being in the midst of a process of falling. But such a view is somewhat untypical.

So if someone says _hän on putoamassa katolta_, I interpret it so that he or she is about to fall down from a roof, rather than being in the process of falling, i.e. in the midst of falling.


----------



## Maabdreo

Does this type of expression indicate an "expected event in the near future" in the following example as well?

_Helpompaa tää kaikki olla vois
jos meitä vielä kaksi täällä ois
*jakamassa* *kaiken, kokemassa* *ihmeen*
joka laajaan maailmaan 
pian nousee kehdostaan

(From _Mitä silmät ei nää_)_​
Should this be understood to mean _This would all be easier if there were still two of us here, *about to* *share* everything_... ? Or does it just mean _*sharing* everything _in this case?

I know song lyrics aren't always the best examples of either spoken or written language since there are usually some artistic constraints involved, but I am curious about this one.


----------



## fennofiili

Maabdreo said:


> Does this type of expression indicate an "expected event in the near future" in the following example as well?
> 
> _Helpompaa tää kaikki olla vois
> jos meitä vielä kaksi täällä ois
> *jakamassa* *kaiken, kokemassa* *ihmeen*
> joka laajaan maailmaan
> pian nousee kehdostaan
> 
> (From _Mitä silmät ei nää_)_​
> Should this be understood to mean _This would all be easier if there were still two of us here, *about to* *share* everything_... ? Or does it just mean _*sharing* everything _in this case?



The latter. Here _jakamassa kaiken_ refers to present and future. The continuation is somewhat different, since _kokemassa ihmeen_ etc. clearly refers to an expected miracle in the near future.


----------



## Maabdreo

fennofiili said:


> Here _jakamassa kaiken_ refers to present and future.



So would _jakamassa kaikkea _also have fit here? What would the difference be?


----------



## fennofiili

Maabdreo said:


> So would _jakamassa kaikkea _also have fit here? What would the difference be?



I don’t think it would fit here at all. The reason is that the partitive case of the object (“partial object”) would more or less require a different interpretation for the verb _jakaa_. It would be taken as meaning “to distribute, to deal, to divide”, whereas in _jakamassa kaikkea_ it means sharing. (For some reason unknown to be, the influence of English has changed the meaning of _jakaa _so that it can also mean “to share” (e.g. an experience) or “to grant” (e.g. a reward).


----------



## Maabdreo

fennofiili said:


> whereas in _jakamassa kaikkea_ it means sharing



(Did you mean_ kaiken_ there?)



fennofiili said:


> The reason is that the partitive case of the object (“partial object”) would more or less require a different interpretation for the verb _jakaa_.



Can you disambiguate the meaning of a verb like _jakaa_ with the case of the object in any other contexts (besides a MA-infinitive expression) where the action is ongoing/habitual? For example: "our children used to share everything when they were little, but now they fight over everything." My attempts:

(b) _Lapsemme jakoivat pieninä *kaikkea*, mutta nyt he riitelevät kaikesta _(?)
(a) _Lapsemme jakoivat pieninä *kaiken*, mutta nyt he riitelevät kaikesta _(??)
(c) something else?​


----------



## fennofiili

Maabdreo said:


> (Did you mean_ kaiken_ there?)



Yes



> Can you disambiguate the meaning of a verb like _jakaa_ with the case of the object in any other contexts (besides a MA-infinitive expression) where the action is ongoing/habitual? For example: "our children used to share everything when they were little, but now they fight over everything." My attempts:
> 
> (b) _Lapsemme jakoivat pieninä *kaikkea*, mutta nyt he riitelevät kaikesta _(?)
> (a) _Lapsemme jakoivat pieninä *kaiken*, mutta nyt he riitelevät kaikesta _(??)
> (c) something else?​



(Did you intentionally use the b, a, c order?)

Here (a) would be understood as referring to sharing (things), though this would be clearer if the word _keskenään _were added: _Lapsemme jakoivat pieninä *kaiken*, mutta nyt he riitelevät kaikesta. _In contrast, (b) would be odd. The partitive _kaikkea _would mean that this is not about sharing but about distributing. Give the entire sentence, I think most people would guess that _kaikkea _is just a mistake and to be understood as _kaiken_.


----------



## Maabdreo

fennofiili said:


> (Did you intentionally use the b, a, c order?)



Actually I rearranged them when I decided that (a) was probably wrong and so should go second (and then failed to switch the letters)... but I guess I was wrong about that!


----------

