# luettuani (temporaalinen lauseenvastike)



## 盲人瞎馬

Hello, I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: (...)kun tajusin vasta langan luettuani olevani talossansa...
The message was written in an internet forum so chances are it's a colloquial construction. The word I'm having trouble with is the "luettuani" one.
I understand in a way what the phrase itself means but I'm creating this thread just so I grasp the construction, which seems a bit uncommon and interesting.

Thanks.


----------



## Gavril

Vitalore said:


> Hello, I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: (...)kun tajusin vasta langan luettuani olevani talossansa...
> The message was written in an internet forum so chances are it's a colloquial construction. The word I'm having trouble with is the "luettuani" one.
> I understand in a way what the phrase itself means but I'm creating this thread just so I grasp the construction, which seems a bit uncommon and interesting.
> 
> Thanks.



_kun tajusin vasta langan luettuani olevani talossansa_ = "when I realized that I was in his house only after I had read the thread"

I'm not sure what "read the thread" means in this case -- we'd need more context to figure out this and other things about your sentence.

In general, [verb] + _-ttua _+ [noun in the genitive] means "once [noun] had [verbed]". For example, _Hän iloitsi voitettuaan palkinnon = _"He rejoiced after winning the prize".

This ending may also mean "once [noun] has [verbed]" in some contexts, but I need to ask the Finns for confirmation: can you say, e.g., _Hän iloitsee voitettuaan palkinnon = _"He will become joyous once he wins the prize"?


----------



## Finland

Hello!

As regards the sentence quoted in the original question, it sounds extremely unnatural although morphologically it is correct. I think a native Finn would use it only humorously, i.e. using an extremely artificial way of saying something quite simple.

HTH
S


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

Gavril said:


> _kun tajusin vasta langan luettuani olevani talossansa_ = "when I realized that I was in his house only after I had read the thread"
> 
> I'm not sure what "read the thread" means in this case -- we'd need more context to figure out this and other things about your sentence.
> 
> In general, [verb] + _-ttua _+ [noun in the genitive] means "once [noun] had [verbed]". For example, _Hän iloitsi voitettuaan palkinnon = _"He rejoiced after winning the prize".
> 
> This ending may also mean "once [noun] has [verbed]" in some contexts, but I need to ask the Finns for confirmation: can you say, e.g., _Hän iloitsee voitettuaan palkinnon = _"He will become joyous once he wins the prize"?



So "kun näin vasta kilpailun voitettuani olevani ensimmäinen" would mean "once I realized that I was at the first place when I won the race"?
Is vasta needed at all times? How would you say that in a negative form? i.e. "once/when I realized that I wasn't at the first place when I finished the race"


----------



## Finland

Hei!



Vitalore said:


> So "kun näin vasta kilpailun voitettuani olevani ensimmäinen" would mean "once I realized that I was at the first place when I won the race"?
> Is vasta needed at all times? How would you say that in a negative form? i.e. "once/when I realized that I wasn't at the first place when I finished the race"



Your first sentence is literally: "when only after having won the race I saw I came (/had come) first" (so it is actually a bit wonky logically).

If it is not affirmative, as your second one, to construct a sensible sentence you need to change the structure a bit: "Kun näin vasta maaliin päästyäni, etten ollut(kaan) ensimmäinen".

I don't really know if I answered your question or not...


HTH
S


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

Finland said:


> Hei!
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence is literally: "when only after having won the race I saw I came (/had come) first" (so it is actually a bit wonky logically).
> 
> If it is not affirmative, as your second one, to construct a sensible sentence you need to change the structure a bit: "Kun näin vasta maaliin päästyäni, etten ollut(kaan) ensimmäinen".
> 
> I don't really know if I answered your question or not...
> 
> 
> HTH
> S



Hm, I still haven't grasped it.
That's a complicated construction.


----------



## akana

Vitalore said:


> Hm, I still haven't grasped it.
> That's a complicated construction.



This is from Leila White's grammar:
*Huom! Että-lausetta ei voi muuttaa lauseenvastikkeeksi,*
*-jos se on negatiivinen:*
*"Tiedän, että hän ei asu täällä."

*So one of the instances in which you _cannot_ use a lauseenvastike (in your example, "olevani ensimmäinen) would be when the construction is negative. In that case you need to use a more conventional construction like an että clause, as Finland pointed out. The other construction, however, "kilpailun voitettuani" is correct because in both instances that clause is affirmative. The basic translation of that construction alone is, "after having won the race, I..." 

I think you're very close to understanding it. The comment Finland had, I think, was that the logic was a little awkward. That once he had won, he noticed he had won.


----------



## sakvaka

OK, let's do the first nearly complete analysis of the word _luettuani_. It consists of these parts:

_lue__ttu-_ (participle perfect: _Kirja on luettu. _The book has been read.)
_-a- _(partitive; this is just a part of this special structure)
-_ni_ (singular 1st personal ending - varies with the subject: _-ni, -si, -nsa/-an, -mme, -nne, -nsa/-an_)

First you have to understand that there is a special construction called _temporaalinen lauseenvastike_ ("temporal sentence correspondent"). It can be used to replace a _kun_ (when) clause and make sentences more literal and more compact. There are two types of temporaalinen lauseenvastike, simultaneous and non-simultaneous. 

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauseenvastike

Examples.

*1) simultaneous* (the two things happen at the same time)
_Nukahdin, kun hän puhui. -> Nukahdin hänen puhuessaan._
I fell asleep when she was talking. -> *I fell asleep during her talking. (you can't say like this in English - it is merely an illustration)

_Pohdin elämän tarkoitusta kun suutelin häntä. -> Pohdin elämän tarkoitusta suudellessani häntä._
I thought about the meaning of life when I was kissing her. -> ... while kissing her.

*2) non-simultaneous* (the two things happen at different times, usually something follows something)
_Nukahdin, kun hän oli lopettanut. -> Nukahdin hänen lopetettuaan.
_I fell asleep when she had finished. -> *I fell asleep soon after her finishing. (you can't say like this in English - it is merely an illustration)

_Aloin ajatella elämän tarkoitusta, kun olin suudellut häntä. -> Aloin ajatella elämän tarkoitusta suudeltuani häntä._
I started thinking about the meaning of life when I had kissed her. -> ... after having kissed her.
​In a nutshell: the construction you're referring to is used to replace a _kun olin XXX:nut_ clause (once I had..., after having ...). It is used to make sentences shorter, neater and and more compact. Try it yourself!

Example.
_
Kuulin räjähdyksen, kun olin lähettänyt sähköpostiviestin. _I heard the explosion once I had sent the e-mail message.

_lähettää - lähetetty _(participle perfect) - _lähetettyä_ (partitive) - _lähetettyäni_ (when *I* had sent it)

_Syön ruoan, kun lähdet pois._ I will eat the food when you have left.

_lähteä _- _lähdetty_ - _lähdettyä_ - _lähdettyäsi_ _pois_

And other way round.

_Nauroin Liisalle hänen kaaduttuaan._ (fell over)
_Kallen kuoltua elämäni alkoi tuntua turhalta. _(die)

It will need another syntactic analysist to tell why we sometimes use the personal suffix and sometimes not (_kaaduttuaan, kuoltua_). Can anyone clarify?


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

sakvaka said:


> OK, let's do the first nearly complete analysis of the word _luettuani_. It consists of these parts:
> 
> _lue__ttu-_ (participle perfect: _Kirja on luettu. _The book has been read.)
> _-a- _(partitive; this is just a part of this special structure)
> -_ni_ (singular 1st personal ending - varies with the subject: _-ni, -si, -nsa/-an, -mme, -nne, -nsa/-an_)
> 
> First you have to understand that there is a special construction called _temporaalinen lauseenvastike_ ("temporal sentence correspondent"). It can be used to replace a _kun_ (when) clause and make sentences more literal and more compact. There are two types of temporaalinen lauseenvastike, simultaneous and non-simultaneous.
> 
> http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauseenvastike
> 
> Examples.
> *1) simultaneous* (the two things happen at the same time)
> _Nukahdin, kun hän puhui. -> Nukahdin hänen puhuessaan._
> I fell asleep when she was talking. -> *I fell asleep during her talking. (you can't say like this in English - it is merely an illustration)
> 
> _Pohdin elämän tarkoitusta kun suutelin häntä. -> Pohdin elämän tarkoitusta suudellessani häntä._
> I thought about the meaning of life when I was kissing her. -> ... while kissing her.
> 
> *2) non-simultaneous* (the two things happen at different times, usually something follows something)
> _Nukahdin, kun hän oli lopettanut. -> Nukahdin hänen lopetettuaan.
> _I fell asleep when she had finished. -> *I fell asleep soon after her finishing. (you can't say like this in English - it is merely an illustration)
> 
> _Aloin ajatella elämän tarkoitusta, kun olin suudellut häntä. -> Aloin ajatella elämän tarkoitusta suudeltuani häntä._
> I started thinking about the meaning of life when I had kissed her. -> ... after having kissed her.
> ​In a nutshell: the construction you're referring to is used to replace a _kun olin XXX:nut_ clause (once I had..., after having ...). It is used to make sentences shorter, neater and and more compact. Try it yourself!
> 
> Example.
> _
> Kuulin räjähdyksen, kun olin lähettänyt sähköpostiviestin. _I heard the explosion once I had sent the e-mail message.
> 
> _lähettää - lähetetty _(participle perfect) - _lähetettyä_ (partitive) - _lähetettyäni_ (when *I* had sent it)
> 
> _Syön ruoan, kun lähdet pois._ I will eat the food when you have left.
> 
> _lähteä _- _lähdetty_ - _lähdettyä_ - _lähdettyäsi_ _pois_
> 
> And other way round.
> 
> _Nauroin Liisalle hänen kaaduttuaan._ (fell over)
> _Kallen kuoltua elämäni alkoi tuntua turhalta. _(die)
> 
> It will need another syntactic analysist to tell why we sometimes use the personal suffix and sometimes not (_kaaduttuaan, kuoltua_). Can anyone clarify?



Is this construction always translated using the pluperfect?

Lähdin vasta ruoan syötyäni - I left as soon as I'*ve* eaten my food *~> My translation/The way I read it.
*Wouldn't the sentence above be translated as: "I left as soon as I *had *eaten my food? *~> The way you guys seem to translate it.

*Also thank you for the effort for coming up with such an explanation. You guys are very, very helpful.*
*


----------



## sakvaka

I think your native language is messing things up here. As far as I know, Romance languages use the pluperfect differently from the Germanic ones - and Finnish is often syntactically very close to Swedish. Of course, I'm not a native Englishman.

Well, not always. If the main clause is in future / present, the subclause is in perfect.

_Soitan sinulle saavuttuani kotiin. _I'll phone you as soon as I have arrived at home.

And:
_Lähdin vasta ruoan syötyäni. _I didn't leave until I had finished my dinner.


----------



## akana

sakvaka said:


> _Nauroin Liisalle hänen kaaduttuaan._ (fell over)
> _Kallen kuoltua elämäni alkoi tuntua turhalta. _(die)
> 
> It will need another syntactic analysist to tell why we sometimes use the personal suffix and sometimes not (_kaaduttuaan, kuoltua_). Can anyone clarify?



According to Leila White's _Suomen kielioppia ulkomaalaisille_, if there are two subjects in the sentence, as in both of yours, then the following applies:

_Kun Liisa on syönyt, Mikko tiskaa ----> Liisa*n* syötyä Mikko tiskaa._

However:

_*Huom!* Persoonapronominin genetiivin jälkeen possessiivisuffiksi:
Kun minä olen syönyt, Mikko tiskaa ----> *Minun* syötyä*ni* Mikko tiskaa._

So, if the temporaalirakenne comes after a personal pronoun, hänen, minun, sinun etc., then it requires the possessive suffix. A word of caution to non-native speakers like myself, however, these rules do _not_ necessarily apply in exactly the same way to other types of lauseenvastike. I only wish I could do it instinctively like Sakvaka has here.


----------



## pearho

One problem with that explanation, in my opinion, is that it doesn't explain why there is sometimes a personal pronoun (in the genitive) and sometimes not, and whether that pronoun is required or optional.

Here is my understanding of the rules:

1) If the subjects are the same, use only suffices and no genitive pronoun:

_syötyäni tiskaan
syötyäsi tiskaat
syötyään hän tiskaa
syötyään he tiskaavat
syötyään Kalle tiskaa_

2) If the subjects are different, suffices are required if  a genitive personal pronoun *can* be used and otherwise forbidden; hänen/heidän is required; the other genitive personal pronouns are optionally used for emphasis:
_(sinun) syötyäsi tiskaan
(minun) syötyäni tiskaat
hänen syötyään tiskaan
heidän syötyään tiskaan
Kallen syötyä tiskaan
sen [vauvan] syötyä tiskaan
niiden [vauvojen] syötyä tiskaan_

What do you think?


----------



## pearho

pearho said:


> 1) If the subjects are the same, use only suffices and no genitive pronoun:
> _syötyäni tiskaan
> syötyäsi tiskaat
> syötyään hän tiskaa
> syötyään he tiskaavat
> syötyään Kalle tiskaa_
> 
> 2) If the subjects are different, suffices are required if  a genitive personal pronoun *can* be used and otherwise forbidden; hänen/heidän is required; the other genitive personal pronouns are optionally used for emphasis:
> _(sinun) syötyäsi tiskaan
> (minun) syötyäni tiskaat
> hänen syötyään tiskaan
> heidän syötyään tiskaan
> Kallen syötyä tiskaan
> sen [vauvan] syötyä tiskaan
> niiden [vauvojen] syötyä tiskaan_
> 
> What do you think?


In addition, is this acceptable: _minun syötyäni tiskaan_?
And, can one use the -AnsA forms: _heidän syötyänsä tiskaan__, __syötyänsä Kalle tiskaa__?
_And what about the 4th-person passive, _syötyä tiskataan_?


----------



## akana

pearho said:


> In addition, is this acceptable: _minun syötyäni tiskaan_? In all the examples in my grammar, all personal pronouns are omitted when there is only one subject. As i'm guessing you know, including hänen or heidän _would_ be incorrect in a single subject sentence because to say "Mikko tiskaa hänen syötyään" means "Mikko will wash the dishes when Liisa (or whoever else, derived from context or otherwise) has eaten." The Finns would have to say whether including the other pronouns would actually be incorrect or just optional.
> And, can one use the -AnsA forms: _heidän syötyänsä tiskaan__, __syötyänsä Kalle tiskaa__? I would guess so, but I'm not 100% sure. To my knowledge, -nsa and -an are completely interchangeable, with -nsa being the more formal written form.
> _And what about the 4th-person passive, _syötyä tiskataan_? I don't know. I've never seen this usage, but again, the Finns would have to say whether it sounds natural or not.


----------

