# conjugation



## agriprop

"Hänen kerrotaan pystyneen ..."

I understand the meaning of this sentence, but could someone explain to me what is the 'pystyneen', or how is pystyä conjugated here / what kind of grammar is used in this clause?


----------



## Kiley

agriprop said:


> "Hänen kerrotaan pystyneen ..."
> 
> I understand the meaning of this sentence, but could someone explain to me what is the 'pystyneen', or how is pystyä conjugated here / what kind of grammar is used in this clause?



First off, I am not perfect at Finnish by any means. That being said, I would like to ask where you read this sentence. It could be due to the situation, but pystyneen is plural. I will explain in a minute. 

To form this version (the perfect tense), you must take the infinitive pystyä and locate the stem. The stem is pysty. To form the perfect tense of this word, you would add either -nyt or -neet to the stem. 

This is what confuses me about your text: the -nyt ending is singular, the -neet is plural. If that's confusing, refer to these structures:

Olen pysynyt. Olet pysynyt. On pysynyt. 
Olemme pysyneet. Olette pysyneet. Ovat pysyneet.

There could be another reason the plural is being used, but I wouldn't know what that reason is. Perhaps if there is a Finnish person on here, they could better help with that. 

You can find more information on this at a website called Uusi Kielemme.

You can find all of the forms of this very at Verbix's Online Conjugator for Finnish. All you have to do is enter the infinitive and it will give you all of the formations. 

Good luck.


----------



## Gavril

Kiley said:


> First off, I am not perfect at Finnish by any means. That being said, I would like to ask where you read this sentence. It could be due to the situation, but pystyneen is plural. I will explain in a minute.
> 
> To form this version (the perfect tense), you must take the infinitive pystyä and locate the stem. The stem is pysty. To form the perfect tense of this word, you would add either -nyt or -neet to the stem.
> 
> This is what confuses me about your text: the -nyt ending is singular, the -neet is plural.



With all due respect, you're mistaken that _pystyneen _is a plural form: it's the accusative singular of _pystynyt, _the perfect active participle of _pystyä_. _hänen _in this sentence is the gen. sg. of _hän_. If this word were in the plural, then _pystyneen _would also become plural:

_Heidän kerrotaan pystyneet
_"It is said that they were able to ..." 

One term I've heard used for this construction is _lauseenvastike. _It may not be the only term (or the most specific term) for this construction. There is a Wikipedia article on _lauseenvastike -- _I don't know whether it's accurate or not.


----------



## Kiley

Ah, yes, yes, my mistake, indeed. I apologize for confusing you, if I did. I will continue looking for information on this and, if I find anything, I will let you know. If not, I do hope a Finnish person can explain it to you.


----------



## sakvaka

> If this word were in the plural, then _pystyneen _would also become plural:
> 
> _Heidän kerrotaan pystyneet
> _"It is said that they were able to ..."


This is not true. It's still _heidän kerrotaan pystyneen..._

Gavril was right when he said, that all these are examples of _lauseenvastike_, and belong to the subgroup of _participle structures. _They are often used with verbs of noticing, thinking, saying etc. to replace an _että_ -clause (that...).

_Kerrotaan, että hän on pystynyt...
Hänen kerrotaan pystyneen... _(why not: _kerrotaan hänen pystyneen..._)

In spoken language these structures sound as bookish as "he is told to have been able to..." in English. Better: _They say, that_ he has been able to...

When these connected clauses happen at the same time, present participle (_pystyvän_) is used. And when these happen at different times, past participle (_pystyneen_) is used. The case of the participle is *accusative* (just as Gavril said), and it always ends in a "n".


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> This is not true. It's still _heidän kerrotaan pystyneen..._
> 
> Gavril was right when he said, that all these are examples of _lauseenvastike_, and belong to the subgroup of _participle structures. _They are often used with verbs of noticing, thinking, saying etc. to replace an _että_ -clause (that...).
> 
> _Kerrotaan, että hän on pystynyt...
> Hänen kerrotaan pystyneen... _(why not: _kerrotaan hänen pystyneen..._)
> 
> In spoken language these structures sound as bookish as "he is told to have been able to..." in English. Better: _They say, that_ he has been able to...
> 
> When these connected clauses happen at the same time, present participle (_pystyvän_) is used. And when these happen at different times, past participle (_pystyneen_) is used. The case of the participle is *accusative* (just as Gavril said), and it always ends in a "n".



Sorry for the misinformation. I'm sure, though, that I've seen examples like the sentence I made with _pystyneet_, but maybe they were bad or non-standard Finnish. For example, if you Google "ajatellaan olevat", "arvellaan olevat" and "arvellaan olleet", a few hits come up.


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> Sorry for the misinformation. I'm sure, though, that I've seen examples like the sentence I made with _pystyneet_, but maybe they were bad or non-standard Finnish. For example, if you Google "ajatellaan olevat", "arvellaan olevat" and "arvellaan olleet", a few hits come up.



All those hits are bad Finnish and probably even typing errors.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> I'm sure, though, that I've seen examples like the sentence I made with _pystyneet_, but maybe they were bad or non-standard Finnish.


I am by no means an expert on Finnish grammar but I'd like to say that _pystyneet_ is of course perfectly correct in the 3rd person plural present perfect and past perfect tenses: _He olivat *pystyneet*/*kyenneet* voittamaan kaikki vaikeudet._ (They had been able to overcome all [the] difficulties.)

To an earlier poster  -  I forget, who: _He is *told* to have known it_ is wrong. _Tell_ cannot be used in this structure owing to the fixed meaning it has in this passive usage: _He was *told* to leave the building. _(People ordered him to leave it.) _He is *said* to have known it_ is correct. (They say/People say that he knew it.) No comma before _that._


----------



## agriprop

Thanks to all your replies!
Especially the wiki page is helpful


----------

