# dictionary entry, lemma (nominative / partitive)



## Hans Molenslag

Gavril said:


> I'm not sure what dictionary you got this from, but the nominative singular (i.e. the usual dictionary citation form) of this phrase is _laho puu_, not _lahoa puuta_.


It's a an example phrase under the main entry _laho_. In phrases or entire sentences you can use grammatical cases wherever applicable. I've only started to learn some Finnish recently, but the way I understand it, the phrase is in the partitive case to indicate an indefinite amount of wood. In the nominative case, I think it would rather mean _rotten tree_, wouldn't it?


----------



## Gavril

Hans M. said:


> In phrases or entire sentences, you can use grammatical cases wherever applicable.



I agree with this if the context of the sentence and phrase triggers a particular case form (e.g. in the phrase _day's end_, the context triggers the genitive case of _day_). But if your dictionary simply cites the phrase _lahoa puuta_ by itself, then there is no surrounding context to justify the use of the partitive case.



> I've only started to learn some Finnish recently, but the way I understand it, the phrase is in the partitive case to indicate an indefinite amount of wood. In the nominative case, I think it would rather mean _rotten tree_, wouldn't it?



It's true that, in some contexts, the partitive can serve to distinguish an uncountable material/substance ("wood") from a countable item ("tree"). But, there are many contexts in which the nominative case would be used for both:

_Laho puu ei sovi paikkaamaan reikää veneessämme._ "Rotten wood won't work for patching up the hole in our boat."

_Pihalla oli laho puu._ "There was a rotten tree in the yard."


----------



## Hans Molenslag

Gavril said:


> But if your dictionary simply cites the phrase _lahoa puuta_ by itself, then there is no surrounding context to justify the use of the partitive case.


I perfectly understand that uncountable nouns can be nominative or partitive depending on the context and the grammatical structure of the sentence. But couldn't the use of the partitive be justified by the mere absence of context, especially when the nominative would be ambiguous? Just wondering.

I'm browsing through a Swedish Finnish dictionary at the moment and I notice there are uncountable noun phrases in the partitive in that one too, e.g.

vatten i knäet _vettä polvessa_
kärlek vid första ögonkastet _rakkautta ensi silmäyksellä_​


----------



## Gavril

Hans M. said:


> I perfectly understand that uncountable nouns can be nominative or partitive depending on the context and the grammatical structure of the sentence. But couldn't the use of the partitive be justified by the mere absence of context, especially when the nominative would be ambiguous? Just wondering.



I think the same kind of measures (for dictionary citations, etc.) should be applied to Finnish as are applied to other languages. For example, if you look up the word "wood" in an English->French dictionary, the first translation will generally be _bois_, not _du bois, _even though the latter phrase refers more clearly (correct me if I'm wrong) to wood as an uncountable material.

What's more, the partitive without context is still ambiguous: _Hakkasin lahoa puuta kunnes se kaatui_ "I chopped at the rotten tree until it fell" vs. _Veneen rungossa on lahoa puuta_ "There is rotten wood in the boat's hull".

This is getting a bit off-topic, so if you want to continue talking can you send me a PM? Thanks.


----------



## AutumnOwl

I agree with Gavril, 'laho puu' is what I would use in this case.


----------



## Hans Molenslag

AutumnOwl said:


> I agree with Gavril, 'laho puu' is what I would use in this case.


OK, so what about the other two examples? Why did the editors use the partitive in _vettä polvessa_ and _rakkautta ensi silmäyksellä_?


----------



## Gavril

Hans M. said:


> OK, so what about the other two examples? Why did the editors use the partitive in _vettä polvessa_ and _rakkautta ensi silmäyksellä_?



I know that this question was not directed at me, but I would venture to guess that these phrases are very rarely used in the nominative compared to the partitive. I.e., they tend to appear in contexts like _Minulla on vettä polvessa_, or _Se oli rakautta ensi silmäyksellä_.

When compiling this dictionary, the editors probably took the phrases out of contexts like these but chose (wrongly, in my opinion) not to put them in the "default" case, i.e. the nominative.


----------

