# Partitive



## 盲人瞎馬

> Meiji-restauraation jälkeen Japanin teollisuus kehittyi nopeasti ja väestönkasvu oli nopeaa.



This is something I always wondered about but never bothered to look into. Why is nopea in the partitive if kasvu is a countable noun? Is there an uncountable (but omitted) noun after nopea in the partitive?

Thanks.


----------



## DrWatson

Nothing has been omitted. I think _kasvu _isn't a countable noun – or even if it is, it's not the most prototypical one. VISK § 947 says that with deverbal nouns denoting state or action (like _kasvu _< _kasvaa_), the predicative in the nominative highlights the result of the action or that it's temporally bounded. I would say that in your sentence the focus is quite clearly in the process, so the partitive is justified. In fact, I can't think of a context where _väestönkasvu oli nopea_ would make sense.


----------



## fennofiili

DrWatson said:


> I think _kasvu _isn't a countable noun – or even if it is, it's not the most prototypical one.



The term used in Finnish grammars is “jaoton” (literally “indivisible”), which roughly corresponds to “countable”, i.e. something that cannot be divided into parts without losing its identity. A spoon is “jaoton”, water normally isn’t, but a certain mass of water (like the water in my glass) can be treated as “jaoton”. Names of action are more complicated. “Kasvu”, and even more “kasvaminen”, is normally not “jaoton”, but a certain event where something grows from something to something else may be presented as “jaoton”.



> says that with deverbal nouns denoting state or action (like _kasvu _< _kasvaa_), the predicative in the nominative highlights the result of the action or that it's temporally bounded.



Well, yes, with the addition “for example”; it says: “Nominatiivipredikatiivi nostaa teonnimistä esiin esim. ajallisesti rajatun teon tai tuloksen merkityksen”. The issue is whether the growth is described as “jaoton”, as something considered as an object, so to say. In the given case, the process seems to be open-ended: its start is indicated (somewhat vaguely), but not the end. So here “nopeaa” would be normal, and “nopea” indeed sounds somewhat odd.



> In fact, I can't think of a context where _väestönkasvu oli nopea_ would make sense.



What about “Väestönkasvu viidestä miljoonasta kuuteen oli nopea”, when referring to a specific process where the population of a country grew from a specific number to another specific number?


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

DrWatson said:


> Nothing has been omitted. I think _kasvu _isn't a countable noun – or even if it is, it's not the most prototypical one. VISK § 947 says that with deverbal nouns denoting state or action (like _kasvu _< _kasvaa_),  the predicative in the nominative highlights the result of the action  or that it's temporally bounded. I would say that in your sentence the  focus is quite clearly in the process, so the partitive is justified. In  fact, I can't think of a context where _väestönkasvu oli nopea_ would make sense.



You're being too technical. Does it basically boil down to the fact that kasvu is uncountable, thus the partitive?


----------



## DrWatson

fennofiili said:


> What about “Väestönkasvu viidestä miljoonasta kuuteen oli nopea”, when referring to a specific process where the population of a country grew from a specific number to another specific number?


Yes, you're right. Although it's not a context you would need or encounter very often (in my mind), it's plausible nevertheless.


Vitalore said:


> You're being too technical. Does it basically boil down to the fact that kasvu is uncountable, thus the partitive?


Too technical? Please read the previous messages, the chapter of VISK that I linked and some additional chapters. When it comes to choosing between nominative/genitive or partitive in the object or predicative, Finnish is everything but straightforward. It's difficult to describe these phenomena without being technical. It all depends on the context and even the word itself.


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

DrWatson said:


> Yes, you're right. Although it's not a context you would need or encounter very often (in my mind), it's plausible nevertheless.
> Too technical? Please read the previous messages, the chapter of VISK that I linked and some additional chapters. When it comes to choosing between nominative/genitive or partitive in the object or predicative, Finnish is nothing but straightforward. It's difficult to describe these phenomena without being technical. It all depends on the context and the word itself.



My Finnish isn't good enough to understand the language used in that page.


----------



## fennofiili

Vitalore said:


> My Finnish isn't good enough to understand the language used in that page.



“Iso suomen kielioppi” (ISK; the web version is known as verkko-ISK or VISK) is difficult to read even to an educated native speaker. It is a voluminous (almost 1,700 pages in printed form) compilation of linguistic treatises on Finnish written in the same style, rather than a handy reference grammar. But it has a huge amount of descriptive information.

As Vitalore wrote, the choice of case forms for a predicative is complicated. Perhaps the following explains it to some extent, as regards to adjectives as predicatives. (This is from a manuscript of mine and somewhat raw in form.)

An *adjective* used as a predicative is in the nominative, e.g. _Poika on surullinen_ (The boy is sad), unless there is a special reason to use the partitive, namely one of the following:


The subject is a mass noun, e.g. _Alumiini on kevyttä_ (The aluminium is light). This applies even when noun refers to some specific sample of the substance, e.g. _Kahvi on vahvaa_ (The coffee is strong).  However, when referring to a specific brand, the nominative may be used, e.g. _Tämä viini on nuori ja hedelmäinen_ (This wine is young and fruity; referring to a brand being tested).
The subject is a verb in the infinitive. In such a construct, the normal word order order is predicate – predicative – subject, e.g. _On parasta lähteä_ (It is best to leave). In Finnish, the infinitive (_tavata_) is interpreted as the subject here. Some common adjectives such as _hauska_, _helppo_, _hyvä_, _ikävä_, and _vaikea_ are more often used in the nominative in these constructs, e.g. _Oli hauska tavata_ (It was nice to meet); using the partitive, _Oli hauskaa tavata_, is possible, but rare.
The subject is a subordinate clause, normally an _että_ (that) clause, e.g. _On valitettavaa, että lähdit niin aikaisin_ (It is unfortunate that you left so early). The same exceptions apply as for the preceding item, e.g. _On hyvä, että tulit_ (It is good that you came).
The subject is a name of action, such as _kasvaminen_ or _kasvu_ (growth), e.g. _Talouskasvu oli hidasta_ (The economic growth was slow). However, if the subject is regarded as denoting a specific process, the nominative is also possible, e.g. _Suhtautuminen on ollut positiivista_ ∼ _positiivinen_ (The attitude has been positive). Here the partitive means referring to the way people have taken attitude, whereas the nominative focuses on people’s attitudes as a whole.
There is no subject, e.g. _Täällä on meluisaa _(It is noisy here). However, when describing the temperature of the air, the nominative is used, e.g. _Täällä on kuuma_ (It is hot here).
The subject is in plural. This means that the predicative is in plural, too, e.g. _Suomalaiset ovat ujoja _(Finns are shy), _Nämä kirjat ovat kalliita_ (These books are expensive). According to some descriptions, the nominative is also possible in many expressions of this type (e.g. _Nämä kirjat ovat kalliit_), but this is rather theoretical. However, there is a real exception: the predicative is in the nominative, if the subject is a word that is always used in plural or has a meaning like “a pair of”, e.g. _Kasvot ovat kauniit_ (The face is beautiful), _Kengät ovat mustat_ (The shoes are black).


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

fennofiili said:


> “Iso suomen kielioppi” (ISK; the web version is known as verkko-ISK or VISK) is difficult to read even to an educated native speaker. It is a voluminous (almost 1,700 pages in printed form) compilation of linguistic treatises on Finnish written in the same style, rather than a handy reference grammar. But it has a huge amount of descriptive information.



That's good info. Thanks!


----------



## Maabdreo

fennofiili said:


> Some common adjectives such as _hauska_, _helppo_, _hyvä_, _ikävä_, and _vaikea_ are more often used in the nominative in these constructs, e.g. _Oli hauska tavata_ (It was nice to meet)... when describing the temperature of the air, the nominative is used, e.g. _Täällä on kuuma_ (It is hot here).



If the adjective in one of those exception cases is in the comparative form, does it take the nominative or the partitive? e.g. 

_Oli hauskempi (hauskempaa?) tavata hänet kuin hänen sisarensa _
_Täällä on kuumempi (kuumempaa?) kuin siellä 


_


----------



## fennofiili

Maabdreo said:


> If the adjective in one of those exception cases is in the comparative form, does it take the nominative or the partitive? e.g.
> _Oli hauskempi (hauskempaa?) tavata hänet kuin hänen sisarensa _
> _Täällä on kuumempi (kuumempaa?) kuin siellä
> _



The partitive. The nominative would sound odd here.


----------

