# roiskahtaa / loiskahtaa / läiskähtää



## Gavril

_Rekka ajoi suuren lätäkön läpi ja roiskahti / loiskahti / läiskähti liejukasta vettä tienvarrella oleville jalankävijille_

_Kivikkö putoasi luolan seinältä ja roiskahti / loiskahti / läiskähti hiljasti lampeen_

_Jäälohkareen erotuttua_ [tai _haljettua_?] _jäävuorelta se roiskahti / loiskahti / läiskähti veteen ja nosti ison aallon_

_Älkää roiskahda / loiskahda / läiskähda toisiaan leikkiessänne uima-altaassa!_

_Lapsi leikki roiskahdellen / loiskahdellen / läiskähdellen vedessä_ (= Making splashing motions with the hands, not necessarily diving into the water)


Kiitoksia paljon


----------



## 880320

Gavril said:


> _Rekka ajoi suuren lätäkön läpi ja roiskahti / loiskahti / läiskähti liejukasta vettä tienvarrella oleville jalankävijille_


1. "Rekka ajoi suuren lätäkön läpi (or: "ajoi suureen lätäkköön") ja  roiskautti/loiskautti/läiskäytti liejuista vettä tien varrella olevien  jalankulkijoiden päälle."
(The construction here is _genitive_+"päälle"; this I think sounds more natural than one without the word "päälle".)

"Roiskauttaa", "loiskauttaa", "läiskäyttää" are causative verbs; here  they refer to the fact that the truck caused the water to splash.  "Rekka" is the subject of the verb.

If, on the other hand, the water is the subject, the original verbs  "roiskahtaa"/"loiskahtaa"/"läiskähtää" will be correct but the word  order should be changed as follows:

2. "Rekka ajoi suureen lätäkköön ja liejuista vettä  roiskahti/loiskahti/läiskähti tien varrella olevien jalankulkijoiden  päälle."

A construction without the word "ja":
3. "Rekka ajoi suureen lätäkköön roiskauttaen liejuista vettä tien varrella olevien jalankulkijoiden päälle."

The verbs "roiskauttaa"/"loiskauttaa"/läiskäyttää" describe a momentary  kind of action. The verbs could be replaced with  "roiskuttaa"/"loiskuttaa"/"läiskyttää" -- these verbs refer to an  activity that is (or was) continuing or going on; for instance:

4. "Rekka ajoi suureen lätäkköön roiskuttaen liejuista vettä tien varrella olevien jalankulkijoiden päälle."
This *can* imply that the amount of splashing water was greater than in example #3; however, the difference is slight.

I don't know if "tienvarrella" should be written as a single word; right  now, I don't think it should -- suggestions are welcome.

_



			Kivikkö putoasi luolan seinältä ja roiskahti / loiskahti / läiskähti hiljasti lampeen
		
Click to expand...

_1. "Kivi/kivenlohkare putosi luolan seinältä/seinämältä ja loiskahti/läiskähti hiljaa lampeen."
The verb "roiskahtaa" seems to require some kind of liquid for its subject; it doesn't suit the context so well.
According to my dictionary, "kivikko" (written with an "o") means "stony  soil" or "mound/heap of stone". "Kivi"/"kivenlohkare" means "stone" or  "rock".

_



			Jäälohkareen erotuttua **
		
Click to expand...

_


> tai _haljettua_?** _jäävuorelta se roiskahti / loiskahti / läiskähti veteen ja nosti ison aallon_


1. "Jäälohkareen erotuttua jäävuoresta se loiskahti/läiskähti veteen ja nosti ison aallon."
Only  the case of the word "jäävuori" seems to be wrong; other than that, the  sentence is very good. The verb "erota" could be used but "erottua"  doesn't sound bad either.
An alternative constuction could look like this:
2. "Erotuttuaan jäävuoresta jäälohkare loiskahti veteen ja nosti ison aallon."
"Nostattaa" ("to raise") could be used instead of "nostaa" ("to lift"):
3. "Jäälohkareen erotuttua jäävuoresta se loiskahti veteen ja nostatti ison aallon."
4. "Jäälohkareen erotuttua jäävuoresta se loiskahti veteen nostattaen ison aallon."

The verb "haljeta" isn't normally used like this: "haljeta jostakin" (e.g., "haljeta jäävuoresta"). The verb "lohjeta", on the other hand, is often used in this manner. The word "lohkare" might be related to this verb. If this were the case, it would sound more or less redundant to say "jäälohkareen lohjettua jäävuoresta".

_



			Älkää roiskahda / loiskahda / läiskähda toisiaan leikkiessänne uima-altaassa!
		
Click to expand...

_This is another sentence requiring the causative forms for these verbs. (Also note the use of the 2nd person plural.)
1. "Älkää roiskuttako/loiskuttako/läiskyttäkö vettä toistenne päälle leikkiessänne uima-altaassa!"
Here,  "vettä" is the object of the verbs  "roiskuttaa"/"loiskuttaa"/"läiskyttää". These verbs I think require one  or another kind of liquid to be their object.
Note the difference:  "roiskuttaa vettä toisillenne" / "roiskuttaa vettä toistenne päälle".  Again, the construction with the word "päälle" sounds more idiomatic to  me.

2. "Älkää roiskiko toisianne vedellä leikkiessänne uima-altaassa!"
"Roiskia jotakuta vedellä" -- "to splash someone with water". This expression is also possible.

_



			Lapsi leikki roiskahdellen / loiskahdellen / läiskähdellen vedessä
		
Click to expand...

_


> **Making splashing motions with the hands, not necessarily diving into the water**


The causative verb forms are required here, as well.
1. "Lapsi leikki roiskutellen/loiskutellen/läiskytellen vedessä."
This would sound better if an object were given for the verbs. "Vedessä", as is clear, isn't an object here. Example:
2. "Lapsi leikki vedessä roiskutellen/loiskutellen/läiskytellen sitä käsillään."
"Sitä" -- i.e., "vettä" -- is the object in #2.
3. "Lapsi leikki roiskutellen/loiskutellen/läiskytellen vettä käsillään."

(The quotations wouldn't post correctly with the bracket signs in them; I replaced them with "**" but this doesn't seem to help.) (EDIT: Still not working!)


----------



## Hakro

I can confirm most of the answers given by 880320; in some cases I'd have chosen different words but it's not important.



880320 said:


> I don't know if "tienvarrella" should be written as a single word; right  now, I don't think it should -- suggestions are welcome.


Although _tienvarsi_ is a common compound word, I would write _tien varrella_ in two words.



> Rekka ajoi suuren lätäkön läpi...


Note that in fact _rekka_ is a semi-trailer, not a truck. You should say _rekka-auto_ if you mean a truck (tractor) with a semi-trailer. 

(I know, yes I know, today everybody's saying _rekka_ for any truck and even bigger vans, but it's still wrong.)


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> Note that in fact _rekka_ is a semi-trailer, not a truck. You should say _rekka-auto_ if you mean a truck (tractor) with a semi-trailer.



So, would this be an example of _rekka_?

To me, the word _tractor _normally refers to one of these. If by "tractor" you meant "ohjaamo", the normal word for this in American English is _cab_. 

(I just checked the dictionary, and it looks like the word _tractor _can also mean "rekan ohjaamo", but that isn't the most normal meaning.)



> (I know, yes I know, today everybody's saying _rekka_ for any truck and even bigger vans, but it's still wrong.)



What would a pickup truck be called, if not _rekka_? Is this what you mean by a bigger van?

Pahoittelen, että on niin paljon linkkejä yllä.  Englannin auto-sanat voivat olla oikein erilaisia murteesta riippuen, mutta kuvia käyttäen nämä erot eivät haittaa.


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> So, would this be an example of _rekka_? Correct
> 
> To me, the word _tractor _normally refers to one of these. Those are very often called "farm tractors".
> 
> If by "tractor" you meant "ohjaamo", the normal word for this in American English is _cab_. No, "ohjaamo" means only the bodywork, not the whole vehicle with chassis, wheels etc.
> 
> (I just checked the dictionary, and it looks like the word _tractor _can also mean "rekan ohjaamo", but that isn't the most normal meaning.) This is what the American truck companies and professional drivers most often seem to call "tractor". In Finnish it's often called "nuppi", but this is a truck drivers' slang word. The correct term would be "vetoauto" or "(rekan)veturi".
> 
> What would a pickup truck be called, if not _rekka_? It's called "avopakettiauto" or "lavapakettiauto".
> 
> Is this what you mean by a bigger van? Not exactly. I forgot that in American English "van" often means a vehicle for passenger transportation. I meant a similar vehicle for freight transportation (without back seats and windows).


----------



## Gavril

> If by "tractor" you meant "ohjaamo", the normal word for this in American English is _cab_. No, "ohjaamo" means only the bodywork, not the whole vehicle with chassis, wheels etc.


 I guess I'm not very familiar with trucks. Now I see that the dictionary defines _cab_ as "the covered or enclosed part of a locomotive, truck, crane, etc., where the operator sits." This would be the same as _ohjaamo_, correct?


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> I guess I'm not very familiar with trucks. Now I see that the dictionary defines _cab_ as "the covered or enclosed part of a locomotive, truck, crane, etc., where the operator sits." This would be the same as _ohjaamo_, correct?


Exactly correct!


----------

