# for + (time period)



## Gavril

Edelliseen kysymykseeni vastaus innosti minut kysymään, 

how do you decide which case to use when translating Eng. _for _(_a year, years, months_ etc.)? I think I have seen at least the following used:

sisätulento: (_vuosiin _"for years")
kohdanto: (_kuuden kuukauden_ "for six months")
nimentö: (_kolme viikkoa _"for three weeks")

Is there a way to decide between these three?

KP


----------



## Perkele

Gavril said:


> Vastaus edelliseen kysymykseeni innosti minut kysymään,
> 
> how do you decide which case to use when translating Eng. _for _(_a year, years, months_ etc.)? I think I have seen at least the following used:
> 
> sisätulento: (_vuosiin _"for years")
> kohdanto: (_kuuden kuukauden_ "for six months")
> nimentö: (_kolme viikkoa _"for three weeks")


sisätulento: (_vuosiin _"*NOT* for years") is used with negative sentences.

I haven't seen her in years. En ole nähnyt häntä vuosiin.

kohdanto is used for singular and nimentö for plural times.

I stay for a month. Viivyn kuukauden.
I stay for two months. Viivyn kaksi kuukautta.

Then there's always genetive + ajan, for example:
'kuukauden(genetive) ajan' means basically the same as 'kuukauden(accusative)'.
'kahden kuukauden ajan' means the same as 'kaksi kuukautta'


----------



## Gavril

Just to be clear,

En ole nähnyt häntä kuukausiin = "I haven't seen her for months"
En ole nähnyt häntä kuukauteen = "(...) for a month"

and "(...) koko tuohon kuukauteen" = "(...) for that whole month"?

KVK


----------



## Perkele

That's right.


----------



## sakvaka

And just to confuse you a little bit:

Menen (jään) sinne viideksi viikoksi (translative): I'll go (stay) there for five weeks.


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> And just to confuse you a little bit:
> 
> Menen (jään) sinne viideksi viikoksi (translative): I'll go (stay) there for five weeks.



What's triggering the translative here? The future tense?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> What's triggering the translative here? The future tense?


We have no future tense in Finnish! It's just that depending on what the English preposition _for_ means or is used to indicate, different grammatical cases are used in Finnish:

_1._ _I haven't seen him for/in three weeks. = En ole nähnyt häntä kolmeen viikkoon.

2. He went there for three weeks. = Hän meni sinne kolmeksi viikoksi.
    He is going there for three weeks. = Hän menee sinne kolmeksi viikoksi.
    He'll go there for three weeks. = Hän menee sinne kolmeksi viikoksi.

3. He has been here [for] three weeks. = Hän on ollut täällä kolme viikkoa.
_


----------



## Gavril

I meant "future semantics" -- which, based on your examples, must not be the motivating factor for the translative case. So, why is the translative used in (2) and the nominative in (3)? Is it related to _mennä _vs. _olla_?

K


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

I just speak the language  -  unfortunately I don't know the reasons for choosing the grammatical cases. It isn't related to the specific verbs, though, because the same cases are used with other verbs: _Hän on seissyt kolme tuntia. = He has been standing for three hours._

By the way, _viikkoa_ is a partitive, not nominative. The nominative is _viikko._


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> I just speak the language  -  unfortunately I don't know the reasons for choosing the grammatical cases. It isn't related to the specific verbs, though, because the same cases are used with other verbs: _Hän on seissyt kolme tuntia. = He has been standing for three hours._



Ok, then, what is the semantic difference between the following examples? :

(1) _Hän on seissyt kolme tuntia
_(2)_ Hän on seissyt kolmeksi tunniksi

_(3)_ Hän seisoo/seisoi kolme tuntia
_(4)_ Hän seisoo/seisoi kolmeksi tunniksi_



Grumpy Old Man said:


> By the way, _viikkoa_ is a partitive, not nominative. The nominative is _viikko._



By "nominative", I was referring to the _kolme_ in _kolme __viikkoa__._


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

First of all, my apologies for misunderstanding your reference of "nominative". As for your sentences, (1) and (3) are correct grammatically, (2) and (4) are incorrect and never used by native speakers of Finnish.


----------



## Gavril

What about the diff. between

_Hän jäi/pysyi sinne kolme viikkoa

_vs.

_Hän jäi/pysyi sinne kolmeksi viikoksi_

?


----------



## sakvaka

I do not know whether there are any certain "rules" when selecting a specific case. The Finnish grammar (http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=1248) tells something about it. 

Your examples:

_Hän jäi sinne kolmeksi viikoksi._
_Hän pysyi siellä kolme viikkoa._
All other uses are wrong.

Note that the verb "pysyä" needs the superessive case (siellä, täällä, tuolla, toisaalla, muualla), not the sublative case (sinne, tänne, tuonne, toisaalle, muualle).


----------



## Perkele

I don't know how English handles verbs like jäädä but in Finnish it inquires the same case of location as verbs like mennä and tulla.
*
Usage of these verbs and literal translations:*
Menen kotiin. I go TO home.
Tulen kotiin. I come TO home.
Lähden kotiin. I leave (from some other place) TO home.
Jään kotiin. I stay TO home.

Jään kotiin really means I stay home. But when Finns stay they still move?!
So grammatically jäädä is a verb where the action is moving (from place X) to place Y.

*Hencewhy:*
Menen viikoksi. I go for a week.
Tulen viikoksi. I come for a week.
Jään viikoksi. I stay for a week.
Lähden viikoksi. I leave for a week.

*Logically when there's no movement:*
Pysyn kotona. I stay at home.
Pysyn kotona viikon. I stay at home for a week.
Olen kotona. I'm home.
Olen kotona viikon. I'm home for a week.

*Negations:*
In negative sentences we don't often (I don't really know for granted, just a hunch) have genetive-accusative (talon) and instead use partitive-accusative (taloa). Same applies with temporal words.

Olen kotona viikon. I am home for a week.
En ole kotona viikkoa. I am not...

Pysyn kotona kolme viikkoa. I stay home for three weeks.
En pysy kotona kolme*a*(kaan) viikkoa. I don't stay (even) for three weeks.
En pysy kotona kolmen viikon ajan. I don't stay home for three weeks (, I might stay more or less).


----------



## sakvaka

More examples - perhaps you can find some logic in these:

Olin siellä kaksi viikkoa (nominative). I was there for two weeks.
Menin sinne kahdeksi viikoksi (translative). I went there for two weeks.

Aion kävellä tunnin (genetive)/kymmenen tuntia (nominative). I am going to walk for an hour/ten hours. 
Lehdessä on sääennuste kahdeksi viikoksi (translative). There is a weather forecast for two weeks in the paper.

Se kesti tunnin (genetive). It lasted (for) an hour.
Hän jättää velvollisuutensa toiseksi vuodeksi (translative). He leaves his duties for another year.

He lupaavat lämmintä säätä ensi vuodeksi (translative). They promise warm weather for the next year.

Lapsi huusi kolme tuntia (nominative). The child yelled for three hours.

BUT: Lapsi huusi kolmatta tuntia (partitive). The child had been yelling for three hours ("for the third hour").
Hän pakeni toista tuntia (partitive). He fled for hours ("for the second hour").


----------



## Perkele

> Aion kävellä tunnin (genetive)/kymmenen tuntia (nominative). I am going to walk for an hour/ten hours.


Both accusative. The case doesn't change here but singular/plural change follows the patterns known from noun declension so there is really no irregularity here.



> Lehdessä on sääennuste kahdeksi viikoksi (translative). There is a weather forecast for two weeks in the paper.


It's important to know if the temporal words are linked to the verb or some other word in the sentence. In the sentence above, we have both the verb olla and translative case but luckily there's also the word sääennuste.

*Let us consider a sentence like above with an verb of movement:*
Lehteen tulee sääennuste kahdeksi viikoksi.
There will be a weather forecast in the paper for two weeks.

Lehteen tulee sääennuste kahdeksi viikoksi.
There will be a weather forecast for two weeks in the paper.

It's impossible to say for sure does the paper include a two-week weather forecast in the near future or do they include the forecast in the paper for two weeks. To make yourself clear use 'kahden viikon sääennuste'.



> Se kesti tunnin (genetive). It lasted (for) an hour.


It might look like genetive but I think we agree it is accusative. For example if we negate your sentence we use partitive case. Same case as with the first sentence really


----------



## Gavril

Perkele said:


> Olen kotona viikon. I am home for a week.
> En ole kotona viikkoa. I am not...
> 
> Pysyn kotona kolme viikkoa. I stay home for three weeks.
> En pysy kotona kolme*a*(kaan) viikkoa. I don't stay (even) for three weeks.
> En pysy kotona kolmen viikon ajan. I don't stay home for three weeks (, I might stay more or less).



What's the difference between 

1._ En pysy kotona kolmeen viikkoon_ 
2._ En pysy kotona kolmea viikkoa
_3._ En pysy kotona kolmen viikon ajan

_and

4. _En pysy kotona kolmen viikon aikaa

_?


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> More examples - perhaps you can find some logic in these:
> 
> Olin siellä kaksi viikkoa (nominative). I was there for two weeks.
> Menin sinne kahdeksi viikoksi (translative). I went there for two weeks.
> 
> Aion kävellä tunnin (genetive)/kymmenen tuntia (nominative). I am going to walk for an hour/ten hours.
> Lehdessä on sääennuste kahdeksi viikoksi (translative). There is a weather forecast for two weeks in the paper.
> 
> Se kesti tunnin (genetive). It lasted (for) an hour.
> Hän jättää velvollisuutensa toiseksi vuodeksi (translative). He leaves his duties for another year.
> 
> He lupaavat lämmintä säätä ensi vuodeksi (translative). They promise warm weather for the next year.
> 
> Lapsi huusi kolme tuntia (nominative). The child yelled for three hours.
> 
> BUT: Lapsi huusi kolmatta tuntia (partitive). The child had been yelling for three hours ("for the third hour").
> Hän pakeni toista tuntia (partitive). He fled for hours ("for the second hour").



I think I'm starting to understand the use of the translative in these examples. So, what would the negative equivalent of _Jattää velvollisuutensa toiseksi vuodeksi _be? To be more exact, how would you translate

1. _He isn't leaving his duties for another year_ (I.e., he is staying on for another year.)

2. _He isn't leaving his duties for another year _(I.e., he might leave leave his duties, but not for an entire year.)

?


----------



## Perkele

*Two posts above:*
1. I don't stay at home in three weeks (after that I might stay home)
2. I don't stay at home even for three weeks (I stay less)
3. I don't stay at home for three weeks (I stay more or less)*
4. same as sentence 2

*One post above:*
1. Hän ei jätä velvollisuuksiaan toiseksi vuodeksi / toiseen vuoteen
He isn't leaving his duties for an other year / to another year.

2. Hän ei jätä velvollisuuksiaan (kokonaiseksi) vuodeksi.
He isn't leaving his duties for a(n) (entire) year.

+. Hän ei jätä velvollisuuksiaan vuoteen.
He isn't leaving his duties within the next year.

the positive of the sentence 3 would be:
Hän jättää velvollisuutensa vuodessa / vuoden sisällä
He's leaving his duties within the next year.

* I'm not sure can you say this. Can you come up with a situation where to use that sentence? Besides, you have a negative sentence and genetive-accusative which sounds awkward.


----------



## Gavril

Perkele said:


> * I'm not sure can you say this. Can you come up with a situation where to use that sentence? Besides, you have a negative sentence and genetive-accusative which sounds awkward.



I was copying your last example from six posts up*:



> En pysy kotona kolmen viikon ajan. I don't stay home for three weeks (, I might stay more or less).


*Friendly note: in English, I normally say _six posts up _rather than _six posts above _(but, for some reason, I'm not sure about _six posts down _versus _six posts below_).


----------



## Perkele

I'm aware of that. I was merely questioning my own Finnish skills or lack thereof.

And thanks for that piece of information!


----------



## sakvaka

And some more examples:

That's all for now. Siinä kaikki tällä kertaa.
I think I'll ignore the problem for the time being. Luulenpa, että ohitan ongelman toistaiseksi.

But I hope you wouldn't ignore this problem, but continue working with it


----------



## kloie

Perkele said:


> I don't know how English handles verbs like jäädä but in Finnish it inquires the same case of location as verbs like mennä and tulla.
> *
> Usage of these verbs and literal translations:*
> Menen kotiin. I go TO home.
> Tulen kotiin. I come TO home.
> Lähden kotiin. I leave (from some other place) TO home.
> Jään kotiin. I stay TO home.
> 
> Jään kotiin really means I stay home. But when Finns stay they still move?!
> So grammatically jäädä is a verb where the action is moving (from place X) to place Y.
> 
> *Hencewhy:*
> Menen viikoksi. I go for a week.
> Tulen viikoksi. I come for a week.
> Jään viikoksi. I stay for a week.
> Lähden viikoksi. I leave for a week.
> 
> *Logically when there's no movement:*
> Pysyn kotona. I stay at home.
> Pysyn kotona viikon. I stay at home for a week.
> Olen kotona. I'm home.
> Olen kotona viikon. I'm home for a week.
> 
> *Negations:*
> In negative sentences we don't often (I don't really know for granted, just a hunch) have genetive-accusative (talon) and instead use partitive-accusative (taloa). Same applies with temporal words.
> 
> Olen kotona viikon. I am home for a week.
> En ole kotona viikkoa. I am not...
> 
> Pysyn kotona kolme viikkoa. I stay home for three weeks.
> En pysy kotona kolme*a*(kaan) viikkoa. I don't stay (even) for three weeks.
> En pysy kotona kolmen viikon ajan. I don't stay home for three weeks (, I might stay more or less).


Is there a difference between Jään and pysyn?


----------



## Gavril

kloie said:


> Is there a difference between Jään and pysyn?


I don't have a full grasp of the differences, but jäädä often combines with different cases/tenses than pysyä:

_kysymys jäi avoime*ksi*_ "The question remained/remains open" (_jäi_ = past tense)
vs.
_ovi pysyy avoime*na*_ "The door remains open" (_pysyy_ = present tense)

In some cases, _jäädä_ is better translated as "end up":

_Joukkueen hyökkyäys jäi vajaaksi_ = "The team's attack fell short" (= ended up being insufficient)

or in some cases, "get stuck":

_Levyke jäi aseman sisään_ "The disk got stuck inside the drive"

Overall, I think _pysyä_ is a safer choice if you are trying to translate the meaning "stay"/"remain", as _jäädä_ has a number of uses that don't quite fit with that interpretation.


----------

