# We are/ Me ____taan



## Emanresu

Im having trouble writing action word when im writing about we are in finnish. Here are some examples:

Were Listening - Me Kuu*nel*aan
Were Writing - Me Kirjot*e*taan
Were Reading - Me Lu*ie*taan
Were Renting - Me Vuokrataan

My problem is the bolded area's. 

I was shown to spell listen was kuntele but how come i had to take out the t's in kuntele, and when i added the taan at the end?

i was shown that read was lukea, how come i had to remove the -kea when i added the taan?

And then vuokra i didnt have to make any corrections.

Is there any guildines to follow in these situations?

thanks


----------



## DrWatson

Emanresu said:


> We're Listening - Me kuu*n*nel*l*aan (*kuuntelemme*)
> We're Writing - Me kirjo*i*tetaan (*kirjoitamme*)
> We're Reading - Me lu*e*taan (*luemme*)
> We're Renting - Me vuokrataan (*vuokraamme*)


First of all, the verb forms you're using are actually in passive voice. Although it's very common in spoken language to use the passive voice in connection with the 1st person plural, i.e. we, it's not correct grammar. In parentheses you can see the grammatically correct forms.



Emanresu said:


> I was shown to spell listen was kuntele but how come i had to take out the t's in kuntele, and when i added the taan at the end?
> 
> i was shown that read was lukea, how come i had to remove the -kea when i added the taan?
> 
> And then vuokra i didnt have to make any corrections.
> 
> Is there any guildines to follow in these situations?


Oh boy... You've stumbled upon maybe one of the most mindboggling phenomena of Finnish grammar, the consonant gradation. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonant_gradation#Finnish It may give you a hint, but to my mind the text was a little bit difficult to understand due to grammatical terminology. There are actually rules, but there are many of them, and for different consonants and consonant combinations there are different rules.

Maybe someone else has better resources to offer?


----------



## Emanresu

I don't understand which one am I supposed to use the amme, or aan?

Is the amme for active voice
and
aan for passive voice?


----------



## Hakro

I suggest that you learn to use the correct active voice (-mme) always because it's never wrong.

It's still useful to know that the passive voice (-aan) is commonly used in spoken language although it's incorrect.


----------



## Emanresu

So

kuu*n*nel*l*aan = were listening in a passive voice

and

(*kuuntelemme*) = were listening in a active voice

Its still a little sketchy for me could someone use them in a sentence please

kiitos


----------



## DrWatson

Even though *kuunnellaan* in a sentence like *Me kuunnellaan* (= We are listening) is morphologically in passive voice, the meaning is active. It's not translated into English in passive voice, like "We are being listened."

Using the passive voice in 1st person plural active instead of the proper form that ends in -*mme* is just a little quirk in the spoken language, and should not be used in writing because it is regarded as a mistake.

Examples:

*Me kuuntelemme radiota.* = We are listening to the radio. (literal language, the correct form)
*Me kuunnellaan radiota.* = We are listening to the radio. (spoken language, incorrect)

So both sentences above mean the same thing, but the latter is the form used in spoken language and should be avoided at first. After you've learned the literal language well enough, you may move on to study the qualities of the spoken language, but for now, stick to the correct form.

I'll give you an example of the correct usage of the passive:

*Meitä kuunnellaan. *= We are being listened.
*Huoneita vuokrataan. *= Rooms for rent (literally: Rooms are being rented.)

This is a little tricky stuff, so ask more if you wish


----------



## Emanresu

thats cool i understand now the differences the -aan is in the spoken form and -mme is the written form.

ill make a seperate thread for consonant gradation

ive seen (meilla)_sp?_ used for we are too, for example:

Meilla on nälkä - we are hungry

thanks


----------



## Hakro

> Meill*ä* on nälkä - we are hungry


I'll try to explain it: In Finnish we don't have the verb 'to have' at all.

Instead we say that something is for us, to us, on us etc.

"Meillä on nälkä" means "we have hunger" or literally "the hunger is on us".

Another example: I have a car - "Minulla on auto" - literally "a car is for me / to me".

I'm afraid that this is not easy to learn for a foreigner but there's no choice.


----------



## Emanresu

thanks, its no problem i have patience
thanks for your input


----------



## Emanresu

Does this make sense

Me tarvitaan - were needing
Me Ajatetaan - were thinking
Me haluataan - were wanting

how would i say words like

we need 
we think
we want


----------



## DrWatson

Emanresu said:


> Does this make sense
> 
> * Me tarvitsemme *(colloquially: *me tarvitaan*) - We need
> * Me ajattelemme* (colloquially: *me ajatellaan*) - We think
> * Me haluamme* (colloquially: *me halutaan*) - We want


In Finnish there's no difference between normal and continuous verbs, so *Me ajattelemme* can be either "We think" or "We are thinking". There are other ways to express these aspects, but I won't go into them now.


----------



## jfm

DrWatson said:


> *Me kuuntelemme radiota.* = We are listening to the radio. (literal language, the correct form)
> *Me kuunnellaan radiota.* = We are listening to the radio. (spoken language, incorrect)



The second example may be colloquial, but it's not "incorrect". The difference between the two has nothing to do with correctness, but setting/context. 

*Me kuuntelemme radiota* is formal, written language.
*Me kuunnellaan radiota* is informal, spoken language.

They are both correct.


----------



## Hakro

jfm said:


> The second example may be colloquial, but it's not "incorrect". The difference between the two has nothing to do with correctness, but setting/context.
> 
> *Me kuuntelemme radiota* is formal, written language.
> *Me kuunnellaan radiota* is informal, spoken language.
> 
> They are both correct.


I'm sorry to say but you are wrong. The second alternative is absolutely incorrect.

The common use in spoken language doesn't make it correct.


----------



## pegasos

There is something similar to the Finnish informal form in French. Anyone could give that as an example? "On y va" or something. Am I completely wrong? 

Anyway, "me kuunnellaan" is not correct.


----------



## jfm

Hakro said:


> The common use in spoken language doesn't make it correct.



Actually, it does. The fact that the written language doesn't allow it, doesn't make it incorrect.

Written and spoken languages are separate codes. They follow different types of "rules" and conventions. For instance, while written language is usually standardized and often subject to normative measures (both spelling, lexicon and grammar), the spoken language is decided from common usage, i.e. those speech patterns (pronunciation, lexicon and grammar) that are silently agreed upon among language users. Frequence of usage is a heavy argument in favour of "correctness" (even though it more a question of functionality rather than correctness).

In addition, the written language (which is always secondary to the spoken one) often has a spoken variety, in which pronuciation follows spelling conventions rather than natural pronunciation.

You cannot stipulate "correctness" for the spoken language based on what is acceptable for the written language. That's taking prescriptive (normative) measures too far.

"Me kuunnellaan" is perfectly OK Finnish. You may find it preferable not to teach it in a formal learning setting, but it's still a correct form, albeit less formal than "Me kuuntelemme".


----------



## valo__fan

can anyone help me pls? i want to learn what does -mina rakastan sinua- mean?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

pegasos said:


> There is something similar to the Finnish informal form in French. Anyone could give that as an example? "On y va" or something. Am I completely wrong?
> 
> Anyway, "me kuunnellaan" is not correct.


 
Right. _On_ is an impersonal pronoun. It's correct use refers to somebody you can't know as in _on frappe à la porte ( somebody is knocking at the door )_ , but colloquially _nous_ ( we ) _+ 1st. pl. person_ is often replaced b_y on + 3rd. sing. person . _: _A quelle heure ( est-ce qu' )on mange ?_ instead of _ A quelle heure  mangeons-nous ? or A quelle heure est-ce que nous mangeons ? ( At what time do we eat ? ) . _It is considered incorrect in the formal language and generally avoided in written.
What is surprising me in sentences as *Me kuunnellaan radiota*  is that a passive verbal form can be followed by an object , the same as with the active form *kuuntelemme * . Generally speaking, it's not possible with passives in most languages ; however I know that in Polish it can be said _ widziano ludzi  ( people were seen )  _where _widziano _is a neuter passive participle followed by a noun in the accusative _ ludzi ._ Such a construction is puzzling me and I am wondering if the Finnish colloquial use of the -aan form is something similar.

 I would be pleased to know what you think of it.

i


----------



## jazyk

Latin does something similar with deponent verbs, verbs conjugated as passive, but followed by a direct object, as in magnum opus et arduum conamur, we are doing a great and arduous task.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

jazyk said:


> Latin does something similar with deponent verbs, verbs conjugated as passive, but followed by a direct object, as in magnum opus et arduum conamur, we are doing a great and arduous task.



I agree with you about the syntax of deponent verbs , but they don't come from an active verb as the Finnish forms in -aan do. As far as I understand, the verb *kuunnella *is active. In other words _*conor*_ is  a passive form, but has an active meaning unlike  *kuunnella . *I don't know if this verb can be used in the passive  with a subject  in the nominative  , but I 've read that it's quite possible with other Finnish verbs.


----------



## Mats Norberg

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I agree with you about the syntax of deponent verbs , but they don't come from an active verb as the Finnish forms in -aan do. As far as I understand, the verb *kuunnella *is active. In other words _*conor*_ is  a passive form, but has an active meaning unlike *kuunnella . *I don't know if this verb can be used in the passive  with a subject  in the nominative  , but I 've read that it's quite possible with other Finnish verbs.



Finnish use different forms in written and spoken language. Don't ask me why it has become that way, it probably has to do with the language's historical evolution though. Basically in the sentence "Me kuunnellaan" the verb kuunnellan isn't passive at all, it's an active verb that just looks like a passive one. Therefore the rules for active verbs apply in this case and so an object may follow. Everything in language depends on conventions and different languages have different conventions. It just to accept the way the language works for the finns will not change their language just for your sake. There are no easy answers to this kind of "why" questions, although the linguists make some efforts to explain them. Most of the languages you know are probably indo-european languages which have a certain way to bahave with respect to passive voice. Finnish however is a uralic language with a different history and different traditions so it's not so strange that things are different than you expect.

When we speak of objects let's tell you another thing about the finnish passive. In finnish passive sentences don't have subjects nor agents. For instance in "Lammasta purraan" ("The sheep is being bitten) lammasta is the object (the sheep). It's declined in the partitive case to mark it as an object. What if we want to translate "The sheep is being bitten by a wolf"? Well, this cannot be expressed in finnish because there is an agent. We have to revert to the active voice: "Lammasta puree susi". Note that case endings will identify lammasta as object and susi as subject so word order doesn't matter here. Note also that the passive is impersonal. There is no way to conjugate "purraan" in different person because there is just one single form. The real agent is irrelevant, the finnish reader is content with the the knowlege that someone is biting the sheep, someone unknown.

Finally i want to mention yetanother colloquial use of the passive form: "Lähdetään!" which means "Let's leave!". It's a sort of sugestion form. The difference from the first use is that here the subject (me) has been left out which changes the meaning completely. Even here there is a more formal way to say the same thing: "Lähtekäämme!".


----------



## Marko55

Mats, I have just a small remark on your informative message:
Lammasta *puretaan* (The sheep is being bitten) 

The verb should be *purraan*:
purra: purraan
purkaa: puretaan


----------



## Mats Norberg

Of course your right. With puretaan it becomes another verb. Maybe I should blame on the late time. Sorry!


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Mats Norberg said:


> Finnish use different forms in written and spoken language. Don't ask me why it has become that way, it probably has to do with the language's historical evolution though. Basically in the sentence "Me kuunnellaan" the verb kuunnellan isn't passive at all, it's an active verb that just looks like a passive one. Therefore the rules for active verbs apply in this case and so an object may follow.



I really appreciate your explanation. As a linguistics lover I am doing research into passive voice. Passive forms and passive constructions are generally differenciated by linguists ; so I think Finish is a good example. I've read that in Polish too an impersonal passive can go with an object in the accusative in sentences as_ the man was seen in the area_.



Mats Norberg said:


> When we speak of objects let's tell you another thing about the finnish passive. In finnish passive sentences don't have subjects nor agents. For instance in "Lammasta purraan" ("The sheep is being bitten) lammasta is the object (the sheep). It's declined in the partitive case to mark it as an object. What if we want to translate "The sheep is being bitten by a wolf"? Well, this cannot be expressed in finnish because there is an agent. We have to revert to the active voice: "Lammasta puree susi". Note that case endings will identify lammasta as object and susi as subject so word order doesn't matter here. Note also that the passive is impersonal.



So what about _His wife was wounded in the crash _?  I suppose Finish doesn't use passive in such a sentence ; something as_ receiving a wound . _Right ?


----------



## Spongiformi

J.F. de TROYES said:


> So what about _His wife was wounded in the crash _?  I suppose Finish doesn't use passive in such a sentence ; something as_ receiving a wound . _Right ?



Hänen vaimonsa loukkaantui kolarissa.

It's in normal active voice. "Loukkaantua" means "get wounded" or "wound oneself" (not on purpose) and is used in active.

In fact you can also say:

Hänen vaimonsa loukkasi itsensä kolarissa.

This means exactly: "His wife wounded herself in the crash". Though it's not used to mean it was on purpose.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Quite clear. Thanks a lot for your reply.


----------

