# Partitive plural?



## MadelineLynn

I'm only at a beginner's stage in Finnish, so sorry in advance about this question...

I have learned to use the partitive with numerals,

e.g. _Minä juon kaksi viiniä_.

But what about plural words, say I want to say: "I'm drinking two glasses of wine." Do I use the plural word for glasses and put that into the partitive form?

Minä juon _kaksi lasitta_ viiniä?

The Google translator says *kaksi lasillista viiniä*.

Can you give me some insight as to how this form is made?


----------



## sakvaka

MadelineLynn said:


> I'm only at a beginner's stage in Finnish, so sorry in advance about this question...



There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. But joking aside, as this one was really worth asking. 



> I have learned to use the partitive with numerals,
> 
> e.g. _Minä juon kaksi viiniä_. // Here "wine" is considered a portion (bottle? glass?), not as mass noun. This use is not very common with "viini", but with "kahvi" it sounds very natural.
> 
> But what about plural words, say I want to say: "I'm drinking two glasses of wine." Do I use the plural word for glasses and put that into the partitive form?
> 
> Minä juon _kaksi lasitta_ viiniä?
> 
> The Google translator says *kaksi lasillista viiniä*.
> 
> Can you give me some insight as to how this form is made?


"I('ll) drink two glasses of wine." is rendered in Finnish in two ways:

_Minä juon kaksi lasia viiniä.
Minä juon kaksi lasillista viiniä._

There's no practical difference between them. _Lasi_ is 'glass' and _lasi-llinen_ is 'glassful' (derivational stem -_llinen_, which is also present in _kansallinen_, national, and _tavallinen_, usual). Neither is there any difference between these two sentences:

_Minä juon kolme kuppia kahvia.
Minä juon kolme kupillista kahvia.
_
_Kuppi _and _kupillinen_.

But now, let's look into the phrase structure. As you already knew, in most cases numbers require the main word to be in partitive. That's why _lasi_ is transformed into partitive. And because structures like "a glass of...", "a spoonful of...", "a piece of..." all use the formulation _MAIN WORD + MASS NOUN IN PARTITIVE_, _viini_ also needs to be declinated.


----------



## Hakro

sakvaka said:


> _Minä juon kaksi lasia viiniä.
> Minä juon kaksi lasillista viiniä._
> 
> There's no practical difference between them.


In my vocabulary there is a slight difference: _kaksi lasia viiniä_ is colloquial, _kaksi lasillista viiniä_ is literary language.


----------



## sakvaka

Interesting. I also sense a minor distinction, but it's not a 'practical difference' in my book. A valid one, most certainly.


----------



## MadelineLynn

Thanks for your answers. I understand the explanations and it makes sense to me...*but*...
When would you youse the plural of lasi, i.e. lasit?
1) Could you translate _I'm drinking glasses of wine_ (without giving a specific number) or does that not make sense?
2) Using another example, is it correct to say:
_Lasit ovat täysi._
?


----------



## Hakro

In certain cases you can use plural partitive: _Joimme kahdet lasi(llise)t viiniä._ This means that both you and your friend had two glasses of wine. Note that here also the numeral has to be in plural form.

1) _Juon laseittain viiniä_ means drinking many glasses of wine. Another similar expression is _Juon lasikaupalla viiniä._

2) You have to say _Lasit ovat täysiä_ or _Lasit ovat täynnä._


----------



## MadelineLynn

Oh dear, it really is complicated to get a grip of Finnish grammar...

How are the forms _laseittain _and _lasikaupalla_ made?

And how would you translate: I eat two pieces of cake.

My guess would be: Minä syön kaksi palaa kakkua.


----------



## sakvaka

MadelineLynn said:


> Oh dear, it really is complicated to get a grip of Finnish grammar...
> 
> How are the forms _laseittain _and _lasikaupalla_ made?



The complication lies in the fact that these structures replace the English grammar aspects with strangely declinated words. In other words, your examples aren't as easy as they might seem in Finnish.

"I see cars", _minä näen autoja_, appears to be syntactically equivalent to "I drink glasses (of...)", but no, they aren't. The latter needs vocabulary tweaks to sound good.

_Lasikaupalla_ is a descriptive formation, and its build-up is best explained by etymologists, not by us.

_-ttAin_ is the distributive suffix. In addition to the usual cases, Finnish has a number of adverbial cases. However, most of them aren't productive anymore and that's why they aren't so important to learners; rather a nice oddity. More information in Finnish.





> And how would you translate: I eat two pieces of cake.
> 
> My guess would be: Minä syön kaksi palaa kakkua.



See? It's easy.


----------



## MadelineLynn

sakvaka said:


> The complication lies in the fact that these structures replace the English grammar aspects with strangely declinated words. In other words, your examples aren't as easy as they might seem in Finnish.


I'm actually a native German and I have learned a number of languages (English, French - advanced; Spanish, Swedish, Japanese - beginner's stage)
I do like the Finnish language so far, it's just a lot to take for a beginner with all the different cases. Unfortunately I had to miss  the last couple of weeks of my Finnish course because of work and personal stuff. But I want to catch up so I can take the second course in autumn. 



sakvaka said:


> See? It's easy.



Really? 
Tee hee.


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> In certain cases you can use plural partitive: _Joimme kahdet lasi(llise)t viiniä._ This means that both you and your friend had two glasses of wine. Note that here also the numeral has to be in plural form.



So, 

_Joimme kaksi lasia viiniä_ = "We had two glasses of wine (between the two of us)"

but

_Joimme kahdet lasit viiniä_ = "We each had two glasses of wine (respectively)"

Do I have it right? En tiennytkään tätä sääntöä. Kun aloin opiskella suomea, päätin keskittyä sanastoon enkä kielioppiin, nyt vastaan seurauksista.


----------



## hui

> _Joimme kaksi lasia viiniä_ = "We had two glasses of wine (between the two of us)"


No. It means "we had two glasses of wine". You can interpret it like that, both in Finnish and English, but it is probably not what was intended.Many jokes, comic strips, and comedy sketches are based on this kind of ambiguity. If the meaning were clear, they would not be funny.

However, _joimme kaksi pulloa viiniä_ = "we had two bottles of wine" probably means that we shared the two bottles because that is the way bottles of wine are consumed. You do not normally share your glass of wine.



> _Joimme kahdet lasit viiniä_ = "We each had two glasses of wine (respectively)"


Yes, although I think most people would say: _joimme kumpikin kaksi lasia viiniä._


----------



## Carrot Ironfoundersson

Hakro said:


> In certain cases you can use plural partitive: _Joimme kahdet lasi(llise)t viiniä._ This means that both you and your friend had two glasses of wine. Note that here also the numeral has to be in plural form.
> 
> 1) _Juon laseittain viiniä_ means drinking many glasses of wine. Another similar expression is _Juon lasikaupalla viiniä._
> 
> 2) You have to say *Lasit ovat täysiä*or _Lasit ovat täynnä._



Why is it par. plural and not nominative?


----------



## sakvaka

Carrot Ironfoundersson said:


> Why is it par. plural and not nominative?



In fact, partitive is the usual case in these types of sentences. 

_Sadepilvet ovat harmaita.
Pojat ovat iloisia.
Te olette hyvin ystävällisiä ihmisiä._

Nominative is used (1) often by accident, without any specific reason, or (2) in some exceptions (_pl. tantum_ words, comparison/relative expression)

(1) _M'ei olla vielä valmiit tähän.
_(2) _Nämä housut ovat liian ahtaat.
Kaikista tehtävistä ykkönen ja kolmonen ovat hauskimmat._
_Suomen suurimmat kaupungit ovat Helsinki, Espoo ja Tampere._
(Note: _Vaasa, Salo ja Tampere ovat Suomen suurimpia kuntia._ - some of the biggest...)

Some months ago I figured out a third exception, but unfortunately I've forgotten it.


----------



## Carrot Ironfoundersson

Kiitos paljon vastauksesta, sakvaka! I asked my question as a Russian speaker but of course there doesn't have to be any correlation... One small question: is _M'ei olla _the colloquial form of _me emme ole_?


----------



## sakvaka

Yes, or rather my clumsy, non-standard transcription of the spoken phrase.  In 'written colloquial language', that would still most often be written as 'me ei olla'. Some pronounce it with a gap between the two words, some don't.

Ps. In general, plural 1st person forms (_me olemme, me sanomme, me menemme_) aren't used in spoken language but are replaced by a form that looks like the passive: _me ollaan, me __sanotaan, me mennään_.


----------



## Carrot Ironfoundersson

> Ps. In general, plural 1st person forms (_me olemme, me sanomme, me menemme_) aren't used in spoken language but are replaced by a form that looks like the passive: _me ollaan, me __sanotaan, me mennään_.



It sounds like colloquial Finnish is altogether different language...


----------



## hui

> Nominative is used (1) often by accident, without any specific reason, or (2) in some exceptions (_pl. tantum_ words, comparison/relative expression)


And *perhaps* when (2b) referring to something about one entity (person, animal, device):


s_ilmät ovat siniset_
_hampaat ovat valkoiset_
_hiukset ovat vaaleat_
_vaatteet ovat siistit_
_ taskut ovat tyhjät_
_ kännykän näppäimet ovat turhan pienet_


----------



## sakvaka

@ Carrot I, my dear comrade, I regret to be the one to tell you this but there's a _massive_ distinction between the two forms of Finnish, particularly when there's some dialect included. 

Ex.
_Voitasko myö jo mennä nii ei tarttis oottaa nii pitkään? Myö ei päästä perille ikinä jossei myö jo aleta joutua!_

(Standard: Voisimmeko me jo mennä, niin [meidän] ei tarvitsisi odottaa niin pitkään? Emme pääse perille ikinä, ellemme ala joutua!)

@ hui: I'm beginning to remember something... thanks!


----------



## Carrot Ironfoundersson

> @ Carrot I, my dear comrade, I regret to be the one to tell you this but there's a _massive_ distinction between the two forms of Finnish, particularly when there's some dialect included.



Good to know!  For the time being I'll concentrate on the standard version. Ahh... in Hebrew and Russian life is so much simpler!


----------

