# Siinä oli Pekkaa ja Paavoa...



## akana

I read this sentence recently in a book of Finnish children's stories:

_Rovasti alkoi lukea lasten nimiä ääneen. Siinä oli Pekkaa ja Paavoa, Kaisaa ja Liisaa, Tyyneä ja Eemeliä, Hetaa ja Marttaa._

Is the partitive used here for any particular reason? Does it change the meaning or is it just a stylistic feature?

Kiitoksia.


----------



## fennofiili

Iso suomen kielioppi says in § 1234 Partitiivin merkitys ja käyttö eri rakenteissa: “Subjektin sijana partitiivi on kaikkiaan suhteellisen harvinainen; se ilmentää kvantitatiivista epämääräisyyttä ja on tavallisin eksistentiaalisissa lauseissa (» § 916 – 919).” (As the case of a subject, the partitive is, in all, relatively rare; it expresses quantitive indefiniteness, and it is most common in existential clauses.) It descriptions do not seem to mention the usage where proper names as in the quotation, but such usage exists – though usually only in expressive texts and in speech, rarely in formal language due to its style.

An expression like _Siinä oli Pekkaa ja Paavoa_ etc. means that the names mentioned appeared in the list, quite possibly as multiple occurrences. It also suggests that the names given are just examples, rather than a full list. Using the nominative _Siinä oli Pekka ja Paavo_ etc. would sound somewhat odd, perhaps because it too strongly suggests that each name occurs once only.


----------



## akana

Kiitos, fennofiili. Would it sound okay to use the partitive plural with proper names in an instance like this? Not sure if this is proper declension but:

_Siinä oli Pekkoja ja Paavoja..._


----------



## fennofiili

Yes, the partitive plural would sound okay, and those would be the right forms. I’m not sure what difference it would make here – perhaps it would emphasize that there are several occurrences of each name.


----------

