# Partitiivi



## FRANCELIAS

Hi everybody! I am now starting my Finnish studies and have a doubt: there is a sentence on my book: Aika on rahaa (with partitive). Perfect, I can see that the Finns use the partitive case even with the verb to be. On the other hand, there are many other sentences without the partitive case: Helsinki on ihana kaupunki (without partitive). Espanja on kiva kieli (without partitive). Historia on mielenkiintoista (with partitive). Helsinki on iso (without partitive). Haaga-opisto on hyvä koulu (without partitive). I am a little confused because I have been learning many languages and, usually, the verb to be do not take the partitive case and here there are sentences with and without the partitive. I have just read some other sentences: Kulta on kallista (with partitive). Jutan kielitaito on hyvä (without partitive). Se on kaunis kylä (without partitive). Can someone please help me? Thanks in advance for your kind attention, Elias


----------



## Gavril

Hi Elias,

My understanding is that the complement of the verb "to be" generally appears in the nominative case when the subject (the noun preceding the verb) is considered a countable unit. Otherwise, it appears in the partitive.

In the following sentences, the subject _Helsinki_ is treated as a unit because it is a specific location, and _Haaga-opisto_ because it is a specific institution. Therefore, the complement is nominative:

_Helsinki on ihana kaupunki_
_Helsinki on iso
Haaga-opisto on hyvä koulu

_The sentence _Espanja on kiva kieli_ is harder for me to explain, but the fact that _kiva kieli_ is nominative suggests that the subject _espanja_ is (for whatever reason) being treated as a unit. The same pattern would be seen with other nouns referring to languages (englanti, suomi, ranska, etc.)

On the other hand, the subjects of the following sentences (_aika_ and _historia_) refer to uncountable concepts: for example, you generally cannot say _monet ajat_ or _monet historiat_, unless you are using a different definition of both words. Therefore, the complements appear in the partitive:

_Historia on mielenkiintoista
Aika on rahaa
_
Let me know if I can clarify anything about the above explanation.

Gavril

PS: I just read your updated questions. _kylä_ and _kielitaito_ are countable objects/concepts (you can say _monet kylät_ or _monet kielitaidot_), whereas _kulta_ refers to an uncountable substance (you don't say _monet kullat_ but rather _paljon kultaa_). Therefore, the first two take a nominative complement, whereas the last takes a partitive complement.


----------



## FRANCELIAS

Hi Gavril, I am speechless to say how much I thank you for your explanations. I was almost going crazy thinking of the reasons to use or not to use the partitive in Finnish. Have a very nice day, thanks again, Elias 



Gavril said:


> Hi Elias,
> 
> My understanding is that the complement of the verb "to be" generally appears in the nominative case when the subject (the noun preceding the verb) is considered a countable unit. Otherwise, it appears in the partitive.
> 
> In the following sentences, the subject _Helsinki_ is treated as a unit because it is a specific location, and _Haaga-opisto_ because it is a specific institution. Therefore, the complement is nominative:
> 
> _Helsinki on ihana kaupunki_
> _Helsinki on iso
> Haaga-opisto on hyvä koulu
> 
> _The sentence _Espanja on kiva kieli_ is harder for me to explain, but the fact that _kiva kieli_ is nominative suggests that the subject _espanja_ is (for whatever reason) being treated as a unit. The same pattern would be seen with other nouns referring to languages (englanti, suomi, ranska, etc.)
> 
> On the other hand, the subjects of these sentences (_aika_ and _historia_) refer to uncountable concepts: for example, you generally cannot say _monet ajat_ or _monet historiat_, unless you are using a different definition of both words. Therefore, the complements appear in the partitive.
> 
> _Historia on mielenkiintoista
> Aika on rahaa
> _
> Let me know if I can clarify anything about the above explanation.
> 
> Gavril


----------



## Gavril

There are many other cases in which there is no obvious logic (at least for non-fluent speakers) to the countability or non-countability of a noun. See for example the discussion here.

Also, in some contexts, if the complement after "olla" is an adjective, the choice between partitive and nominative has more to do with the adjective itself than with any properties of the subject.


----------

