# törky



## Gavril

One dictionary translates _törky_ as "trash, garbage", whereas another translates it as "dirt, filth". Which of these (if not both) would be closer to the correct translation?

Also, would the following sentences be good Finnish?


_Älä unohda panna törkyä roskikseen. _(Would it make a difference if it was food waste or a different kind of waste?)
_ 
Taiteilijat tekivät __ törystä __patsaan.

Leipä on mädäntymässä ja töryn peitossa.

Pihalla kieriteltyään, koira oli töryn peitossa.


_Kiitos


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

_Törky_ is usually closer to "garbage / trash" than "dirt". _Törky_ never means "soil" or "earth" anyway. _Törky_ is very often used figuratively, to refer to abstract things, as in: _En halua katsella sellaista törkyä televisiosta!

"__Älä unohda panna törkyä roskikseen."
_Correct. _Jätteitä_ would be a more neutral word: _Älä unohda panna jätteitä roskikseen. Törky_ sounds very negative, as if the speaker were a little upset about what he has found somewhere and now wants to get rid of it.

"(Would it make a difference if it was food waste or a different kind of waste?)"
No, but as I said, _törky_ is a very strong word with negative connotations.

"_Taiteilijat tekivät __ törystä __patsaan."
_I think this has actually happened more than once! 

"_Leipä on mädäntymässä ja töryn peitossa."
_Nothing wrong with the grammar but _töryn_ would rarely be used in this context because the word usually implies something so big that picturing it on a sandwich is no easy task! _Mädäntyä_ isn't the best word to refer to bread going bad. I would say: _Leipä oli pilaantumassa ja homeen peitossa/peittämä.

_"_Pihalla kieriteltyään, koira oli töryn peitossa."
_You use a comma the way it would be used in English. _Törky_ is a very negative word for this context. If I had a dog, I think I would say: _Koira oli pölyinen / pölyn peitossa / likainen kieri*skel*tyään pihalla. Kieritellä_, from which _kieriteltyään_ comes, is usually a transitive verb; in other words, it requires an object: _Hän pani pallon lattialle *kieriteltyään *sitä minuuttikaupalla._

GOM


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> "_Taiteilijat tekivät __ törystä __patsaan."
> _I think this has actually happened more than once!



Even though English _junk_ often has a negative connotation, it can be neutral when one is talking about an artist who works in trash -- you can say _junk sculpture _and it won't be offensive to the artist who made the sculpture. Can you say _törkypatsas, jätepatsas, roskapatsas _etc. without offending the person who made the statue?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> Can you say _törkypatsas, jätepatsas, roskapatsas _etc. without offending the person who made the statue?


I don't think you can, but then again, I don't know how some modern artists might react to those terms. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of artists, or "artists". I just watched the news on TV and there was an item about a happening in downtown Stockholm. People were making a noise using pneumatic drills and motorcycles and other noisy gadgets, and the resultant din was called a new kind of "symphony"!

GOM


----------



## Tappahannock

However, the concept you're getting at with junk science, etc., best corresponds to _roska_, IMO.  If it were used, _roskatiede_ would mean what you have in mind. On the other hand, _jätetiede_ would IMO be garbage-ology, the science of garbage, a formation analogous to _avaruustiede_.

The Finn in the household and all her family members have always used _roskat_ when speaking of the household garbage.  I don't know if people from other parts of Finland practice other usages.  _Vien roskat ulos.  Vien roskat mennessäni.  Roskakori on tiskin alla._ _Pizzajätteet menevät roskaan_.   _Pizzajätteet menevät roskikseen_.  _Varo, kun roskapussi on täynnä törkyä. _ (Be careful, the trash can is full of [exceptional] filth.)


----------



## Tappahannock

_Roskapuhetta!_ means Rubbish[talk]!


----------



## sakvaka

Tappahannock said:


> Roskakori on tiskin (= *tiskipöydän*?) alla.   _Pizzajätteet menevät rosk*ii*n_.



A small correction, or at least a usage that is more common here in Finland.


----------



## Tappahannock

Thanks, I hope you'll continue to be generous with corrections and perspective.  As a non-native speaker, I'll surely provide many opportunities.


----------



## Gavril

Tappahannock said:


> However, the concept you're getting at with junk science, etc., best corresponds to _roska_, IMO.  If it were used, _roskatiede_ would mean what you have in mind. On the other hand, _jätetiede_ would IMO be garbage-ology, the science of garbage, a formation analogous to _avaruustiede_.
> 
> The Finn in the household and all her family members have always used _roskat_ when speaking of the household garbage.  I don't know if people from other parts of Finland practice other usages.  _Vien roskat ulos.  Vien roskat mennessäni.  Roskakori on tiskin alla._ _Pizzajätteet menevät roskaan_.   _Pizzajätteet menevät roskikseen_.  _Varo, kun roskapussi on täynnä törkyä. _ (Be careful, the trash can is full of [exceptional] filth.)



So, _jäte _is the neutral term (as you'd expect from the translation "waste"), whereas _roska _and _törky _imply a negative value judgment like Eng. _junk / trash_?

As mentioned, though, the words _trash _and even _junk _can be neutral in some contexts (though the word _filth _is always negative, I think) -- not sure if the same is true of _roska _or _törky_.

Tervetuloa forumiin, Tappahannock! Missä opit puhumaan suomea?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> As mentioned, though, the words _trash _and even _junk _can be neutral in some contexts (though the word _filth _is always negative, I think) -- not sure if the same is true of _roska _or _törky_.


I cannot think of a neutral use for _törky_ but _roska_ need not be negative in all contexts. For example _roskakori_ is the "official" term for _wastebasket. _There are many other cases in which _roska_ has no negative ring.

GOM


----------



## Tappahannock

Kiitos toivotuksesta, Gavril.  

Opin suomea (sen verran, minkä osaan) asuessani neljä vuotta Helsingissä 80-luvulla.  Muutan vaimoni kanssa 2-3:n vuoden sisällä takaisin sinne.  Olen viimeinkin havahtunut siihen, että suhteellisen pienet yhteiskunnat, pienet kaupungit, ja pienet olot ylipäänsä ovat paljon terveellisempiä.  Ja haluan olla mukana vaalimassa suomalaisia arvoja ja perinteitä isossa EU:ssa.  En ole ollenkaan EU-vastaista.  Minusta EU:iin liittyminen on tuonut Suomeen paljon hyvää (sekä jonkin verran pahaa), kunhan nämä kaikki jäsenmaat eivät _liiallisesti_ samaistu - Suomi mukaanluettuna.  Mielestäni on kysymys kansalaiseurooppalaisglobaalisuudesta.

Minulla oli nuorempana ollut loistava saksankielenopettaja, jonka ansiosta opin melko helposti ruotsin kielen asuessani kaksi vuotta tuon maan pohjoispuolessa - ainakin niin pitkälle, että tulin helposti toimeen arkitilanteissä ja nautin viihdekirjallisuudesta.  Opettelin suomen kieltä omin keinoin, missä hankkeessa ruotsinkielinen tekstitys miltei kaikissa elokuvissa ja TV-ohjelmissa oli sanomattoman suureksi avuksi.

Ethän satu olemaan juuri tuo entinen saksankielenopettaja?  Ei kai... Käsittääkseni hän oleskelee enemmän listserveillä. Tapasin häntä nimittäin 20 vuotta opiskeluaikani jälkeen ja olimme molemminpuoleiseksi hämmästykseksemme _molemmat_ ryhtyneet sittemmin opiskelemaan suomen kieltä - minä käytännöllisistä syistä ja han haasteen vuoksi.  Muuten on erittäin harvinaista, että amerikkalainen tai englantilainen edes yrittää oppia suomen kieltä, puhumattakaan siitä, että pääsisi niin pitkälle kuin sinä olet näköjään päässyt.  Saksalaisia ja venäläisiä kyllä riittää (jotka osaavat suomea hyvin), mutta meikäläisiä on vähän.  Tunnen (tai ainakin tiedän) muutamaa sellaista webillä.  En ole koskaan tavannut sellaista kasvatusten paitsi tuo saksankielenopettaja, joka oli silloin osaamisen edistyneessä keskivaiheessa.

Entä sinä? Mistä johtuu sinun mielenkiinto suomen kieltä kohtaan ja miten olet oppinut sitä?  Kummalla kielellä tai sekakielellä vain sopii...


----------



## Tappahannock

Gavril said:


> So, _jäte _is the neutral term (as you'd expect from the translation "waste"), whereas _roska _and _törky _imply a negative value judgment like Eng. _junk / trash_?



To me, and this is impression rather than knowledge, the main difference between _jäte_ and _roska_ is degree of concreteness.  _Jäte_ is something _jätetty_ and _roska_ is more of a concept or characterization.

I see I had not read your earlier question about the garbage statue closely enough.  You were not actually referring to something analogous to junk science. 

_Tuo on jätetaidekappale _might (conceivably) be a way of saying that is a piece of art constructed of garbage, an example of "trash art" or art of trash.  Two things are going on here; one is the choice of _jäte_ over other words and the other is the addition of _kappale_ to emphasize you're talking about the individual objet d'art.
_
Tuo on roskataidetta _would almost surely (I think) be interpreted to mean "That art is worthless."

I suspect the inherent difference in concreteness between _jäte_ and _roska_ (not so much any difference of value judgment) contributes as much as anything else to the distinction in these two sentences.

Then of course we get into sardonic American usages like grunge or grunge rock.  In my opinion these distinctions of meaning don't necessarily translate along neat lines.

If there were a school of art (is there?  I suppose inevitably there must be) that wasn't literally made of garbage but emphasized rust and odd angles and such, it might sardonically be called junk art, neither literally saying it was made of junk nor characterizing it as worthless, but fondly classing it with other works in the same movement.

I think such a movement would probably need to be known in Finland for such distinctions to be interpreted correctly.  I guess we're just coming back to the importance of cultural context independent of the inherent meanings of words.  THEN talk about _roskataidetta_ would become more ambiguous in meaning.

In Finland the pay telephones use to have anti-vandalism warning signs (comical to mainland Swedes) "Söndras ej" -- not to be dispersed, not to be scattered, not to be torn (or cast) asunder.  Apparently it's not comical in Finland Swedish.


----------



## Tappahannock

I suppose the deal with grunge, or possibly with trash sculpture, is that in America we particularly like to pretend we're using a word literally even when we're not.  There's a certain pleasure I can imagine in calling something trash sculpture when it's actually made out of brand new steel plate that has been roughly cut, rusted, and weathered to merely look like it was constructed of trash.

The culture mavens in Finland will dutifully translate whatever terminology we adopt for such a thing, and usually translate it literally to come up with a term that might not have spontaneously evolved in Finland if the phenomenon had first emerged there.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Tappahannock said:


> _Tuo on jätetaidekappale _might (conceivably) be a way of saying that is a piece of art constructed of garbage, an example of "trash art" or art of trash.


_Taidekappale_ in not used in Finnish at all, so I can't think what a prefixed _jäte_ would bring to my mind if I ever heard the word.

GOM


----------



## Gavril

Hauska tutustua, Tappahannock.

En valitettavasti ole mikään saksanopettaja, nykyinen enkä entinen.  Saksan kokemukseni rajoittuu toistaiseksi muutamiin saksankielisiin  kielitiedetutkielimiin, vaikka haluan joskus saavuttaa laajemman  pätevyyden.

Mielenkiintoni suomea kohtaan johtuu osin mielenkiinnosta Suomesta  (maasta, kulttuurista jne.), osin siitä, että harrastan yleisesti  kielten oppimista -- erikoisesti kielten, jotka ovat englanninpuhujalle  niin vieraita kuin suomi. Kävin onnekseni yliopistoa, jossa tarjottiin  opiskeltavaksi paljon harvoin opetettuja kieliä, kuten suomea. En  kuitenkin viihtynyt yliopiston tarjoamassa suomen kurssissa, ja jouduin  opiskelemaan suomea vain yhden lukukauden. Mutta, kurssi antoi minulle  suomen alkeet, ja monen vuoden jälkeen, ryhdyin taas opettelemaan  suomea, omin keinoin. Kuukauden ajan käytin (huonoa) oppikirjaa, mutta  sen jälkeen aloin lukea verkossa olevia lehtiä, bloggeja jne., ja sitä  olen jatkanut. Tästä johtuu suurin osa suomen tietoani. Ei vielä  minulla ole hyvää puhumis-/kuuntelutaitoa -- osaksi koska  kuunteluharjoittelu on minulle aina ollut vaikein osa kielen oppimista,  osaksi suomenkeskustelutilaisuuksien puutteen takia minun alueellani  (kuten melkein koko maassamme). Suomeen muuttaminen parantaisi paljon  suomen taitoani, mutta toistaiseksi, erilaisten tekijien (mm. työn)  takia, pysyn Yhdysvalloissa.

Toivon, että jaat lisää tietoasi minun ja muiden oppijien kanssa.


----------



## Tappahannock

Like you, I am not a big fan (nor necessarily the harshest critic) of the self-study materials available.  Actually, I've been grateful for everything I could find over the years (Karlsson most of all) but none of it felt terribly effective.  And indeed a study reported out last year in Finland concluded that the state-sponsored courses were generally ineffective for the same reason we immigrants were saying in the 1980's that they were ineffective: too much grammar-centricity.  (Of course the motivation levels of students in those courses can be another important failure factor.)  Organic language is learned by imitation, analogy, and adaptation, much the way musical performance is learned.  The people who learn it best seldom have much knowledge of formal grammar.  I myself like to say I knew a lot more grammar back when I knew a lot less Finnish.  Finnish grammar can explain and justify why sentences are the way they are, but by itself it cannot generate natural-sounding or even necessarily correct language, no matter how good a word-level dictionary such a hypothetical computer program might draw upon.  

I like the idea of teaching large functional units, important phrasal building blocks basically, and focusing on mastery of Chomsky-style transformations to fit the pieces together.  And the minimum possible correspondence to words in any other language.  I can't recall whether that's exactly what Olli Nuutinen was getting at with his Suomea suomeksi or whether his focus was more on just the materials themselves being language-free.  But to me the ideal is when someone knows exactly what a word or phrase means in Finnish, applies it correctly, etc., but has to stop and think of even the basic words when asked to translate it to a native language.  That's thinking in Finnish, and I think people can be brought to that even in their early months of study.  It's not an ideal kind of knowing for translators, obviously; but especially for a language as idiomatically different from most others as Finnish is, I think it's the best route for general instruction.  The more people's thinking remains in their native language, the more they'll get tied into knots as they translate.  Translation is simply more difficult that conversation.

You and I have both gravitated toward in-context absorption despite access to more academic forms of learning.  I think that shows something.  And of course all those teen-aged and especially pre-teen immigrants who learn it so well do so mostly by immersion, absorption, and imitation.

I remember once in the 90's spending an outrageous amount on a multi-system VCR that let us keep some contact with Finnish TV.  Nowadays it's so much better when even a $40 Region 1 DVD player can be adapted using nothing more than the remote control to show Region 2 DVDs on an American TV set, complete with Finnish or English subtitles.  It's a wonderful opportunity for working on aural comprehension.


----------



## Tappahannock

You know, if you used the two words

romutaide(tta)
roskataide(tta)

I'm guessing there is little chance that anyone could mistake your meaning.  It is hard (for me, at least) to imagine _romutaide_ as anything other than art constructed of various kinds of mechanical scrap.  I doubt there could be a word that conveys that any more clearly.  And _roskataide_ pretty much needs to mean worthless art because of other _roska-_ compound words and also the inherent semi-generic connotation of _roska_.

I did a little poking around and _taide-esine_ is the most common translation of _objet d'art_.  _Taidekappale_ occurs infrequently enough that it may be, as Grumpy Old Man suggests, just a bunch of different people making the same mistake.

I'm not sure what medium-free word one would use to say "I have a piece in that show."  _Teos_ surely would be acceptable but I wonder, is it just a shade hifalutin'?  So _kappale_ is then not something anyone would say in that circumstance?  And then of course one can always specify _veistos_, _maalaus_, _taulu_ (sounds unprofessional?), etc.


----------



## sakvaka

Tappahannock said:


> I did a little poking around and _taide-esine_ is the most common translation of _objet d'art_.  _Taidekappale_ occurs infrequently enough that it may be, as Grumpy Old Man suggests, just a bunch of different people making the same mistake.
> 
> I'm not sure what medium-free word one would use to say "I have a piece in that show."  _Teos_ surely would be acceptable but I wonder, is it just a shade hifalutin'?  So _kappale_ is then not something anyone would say in that circumstance?  And then of course one can always specify _veistos_, _maalaus_, _taulu_ (sounds unprofessional?), etc.



I think "piece" here is just an anglicism. Just as you say _piece of news _and _piece of information_, there are the forms _piece of music_ and _piece of art_. Only "musiikkikappale" is acceptable in Finnish. Am I totally wrong?


----------



## Tappahannock

A "piece" in art is a tiny bit more exalted, sort of, than the other examples you mention.  I suppose you would call it an accepted term rather than just another occurrence of the word piece.  Artists use it all the time, as well as people around the art community.  

But all the things in a museum are "works" rather than "pieces."  It would be quite disrespectful, presumptuous, and comically self-aggrandizing (for anyone other than the artist) to call something in a museum a piece.

Yet I think you would rarely hear, "He has a work in that exhibition."  It would be a painting, a drawing, an acrylic, an oil, a bronze, a terra cotta, an abstract... or generically, a piece.  Maybe if people were talking about recognized artists whom they did not personally know, they might refer to "works" as a form of extra respect.  The printed program would probably avoid the question by using a more specific word ("the watercolors of, the paintings of...), but since it is a more formal document, it might refer to "the works of local artist John Smith."

As you suggest, this may be an entirely English-language set of distinctions with no clear correspondence in Finnish.


----------



## hui

piece of art = _taideteos (or "taidetta")_

I have a piece in that show. = _Tuossa näyttelyssä on yksi teokseni.

_


----------



## Gavril

Tappahannock said:


> A "piece" in art is a tiny bit more exalted, sort of, than the other examples you mention.  I suppose you would call it an accepted term rather than just another occurrence of the word piece.  Artists use it all the time, as well as people around the art community.
> 
> But all the things in a museum are "works" rather than "pieces."  It would be quite disrespectful, presumptuous, and comically self-aggrandizing (for anyone other than the artist) to call something in a museum a piece.



I don't have much involvement in the art world, but I don't see anything wrong with calling a work of art in a museum a "piece", at least in an informal context. The word _piece _sounds less formal and more "hip" to me in this context than the word _work. 

_In at least one US city (San Francisco, California), it's common to call a work of graffiti a "piece", whether it's legal or illegal. (E.g., "Have you seen that piece over at Pennsylvania and 17th?")


----------

