# partitive and definiteness



## Gavril

Would the following be correct use of the partitive/osanto? :

_Join eilen paljon olutta_. _Olutta _(= "the beer I just mentioned") _oli oikein hyvä._

Vaihtoehtoisesti: _Seuraavana päivänä, kaduin sitä, että olin juonut olutta _(= "the beer", not "any beer"). 

K


----------



## Duracell

_Join eilen paljon olutta_. This is correct.

_Olut_ _oli oikein hyvää._ A noun in a partitive form (_olutta) _is usually not the subject of a sentence.

_Olut oli oikein hyvä. _This is also possible, but it means that I've tried this one specific beer, and that particular beer was good. E.g. _Saksalainen olut oli oikein hyvä, mutta __baarin suomalaiset oluet olivat lähes mauttomia. _

_Seuraavana päivänä_ kaduin sitä, että olin juonut olutta_. (_ = no comma here.)

I would probably leave out _sitä. _I would say _Seuraavana päivänä kaduin, että olin juonut olutta_.

What do the other Finns think about these ideas?


----------



## sakvaka

Duracell said:


> What do the other Finns think about these ideas?



i)_ Join eilen paljon olutta.
_ii) _Olut oli oikein hyvä(ä).
_iii) _Seuraavana päivänä kaduin sitä, että olin juonut oluen. _

I couldn't agree more. In the second sentence total subject is used, because the "whole" beer tasted good. And what comes to _hyvä(ä)_, partial predicative points out a property that appears in the subject generally or totally throughout whereas total predicative is dedicated to the subject entirely and as it is.

Partial adjective predicative (adjektiivinen partiaalinen predikatiivi - what a set phrase! ) can naturally be used only if the subject is able to be partial, eg. is plural, abstract, mass- or collective noun.

As Duracell pointed out, there should be only one comma in the third sentence. I wouldn't leave _sitä_ out as s/he did. However, I'd like to make a small correction to the object: _oluen_ means: "the beer", _olutta_ just "beer".


----------



## Duracell

sakvaka said:


> iii) _Seuraavana päivänä kaduin sitä, että olin juonut oluen. _
> 
> I wouldn't leave _sitä_ out as s/he did. However, I'd like to make a small correction to the object: _oluen_ means: "the beer", _olutta_ just "beer".



Good point. I didn't even think about the possibility of saying _Seuraavana päivänä kaduin sitä, että olin juonut oluen. _I just thought that usually the reason to regret having drunk some beer is that you drank a little too much, and that isn't likely to happen after just one beer. So, I'm glad Sakvaka explained the difference between _oluen_ and_ olutta_.

p.s: I'm a _she._


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> i)_ Join eilen paljon olutta.
> _ii) _Olut oli oikein hyvä(ä).
> _iii) _Seuraavana päivänä kaduin sitä, että olin juonut oluen. _
> 
> I couldn't agree more. In the second sentence total subject is used, because the "whole" beer tasted good. And *when it* comes to _hyvä(ä)_, partial predicative points out a property that appears in the subject generally or totally*[not sure I understand "totally" -- did you mean to write "partially"?]* whereas total predicative is dedicated to the subject entirely and as it is.
> 
> Partial adjective predicative (adjektiivinen partiaalinen predikatiivi - what a set phrase! ) can naturally be used only if the subject is able to be partial, eg. is plural, abstract, mass- or collective noun.
> 
> As Duracell pointed out, there should be only one comma in the third sentence. I wouldn't leave _sitä_ out as s/he did. However, I'd like to make a small correction to the object: _oluen_ means: "the beer", _olutta_ just "beer".



Hämmennys jatkuu.  

In the following examples, how would the underlined phrase _the beer _be translated into Finnish? :

_I saw a beer __on the table _[i.e., a glass of beer, a bottle of beer etc.]_. I was very thirsty, so I drank the beer._ [I.e., I drank the whole beer.]

_I saw there was some beer __left in the glass. _[I.e., there was only a partial amount of beer, not a whole unit]_  I was very thirsty, so I drank up the beer_. [I.e., I drank all the beer left in the glass]


----------



## Gavril

Another question: what would be the proper case of _maukkaannäköinen_ in the following examples?

_Näin oluen _[i.e., a glass/bottle of beer] _pöydällä. Se oli oikein maukkaannäköinen/maukkaannäköistä.

Lasissa oli vähän olutta jäljellä. Se oli oikein __maukkaannäköinen/__maukkaannäköistä.

_(Tiedän, että olisi yleisempi sanoa _Se näytti maukkaalta,_ mutta yritin käyttää esimerkejä nimentö-/osantosijasta.)


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> Hämmennys jatkuu.
> 
> In the following examples, how would the underlined phrase _the beer _be translated into Finnish? :
> 
> _I saw a beer __on the table _[i.e., a glass of beer, a bottle of beer etc.]_. I was very thirsty, so I drank the beer._ [I.e., I drank the whole beer.]
> _Olin todella janoinen, joten join oluen._
> 
> _I saw there was some beer __left in the glass. _[I.e., there was only a partial amount of beer, not a whole unit]_  I was very thirsty, so I drank up the beer_. [I.e., I drank all the beer left in the glass]
> _Huomasin, että lasissa oli vähän olutta jäljellä._ The amount is partial.
> _Olin todella janoinen, joten join oluen. _The amount is not partial anymore, it is clearly defined by the context. Now this starts to resemble the English articles!



When it comes to my earlier post, 'totally' may have been a bad translation for the Finnish word 'kauttaaltaan' (throughout). As you may have noticed, the difference is very small in these sentences (Duracell has already described it):
_Olut oli hyvä.
Olut oli hyvää_.

But it gets bigger and clearer in these:
_Helsinki ja Turku ovat Suomen suurimmat kaupungit. _(... are the largest cities ...)
_Helsinki ja Turku ovat Suomen suurimpia kaupunkeja._ (... are some of the largest cities ...)



> Another question: what would be the proper case of _maukkaannäköinen_ in the following examples?
> 
> _Näin oluen _[i.e., a glass/bottle of beer] _pöydällä. Se oli oikein maukkaannäköinen /maukkaannäköistä . _I am not completely sure about these; when we use partitive, the subject changes from total to partial, but it doesn't mess the sentence up at all.
> _
> Lasissa oli vähän olutta jäljellä. Se (= the glass) oli oikein __maukkaannäköinen. Se (= the beer) oli oikein __maukkaannäköistä .
> 
> _(Tiedän, että olisi yleisempää sanoa _Se näytti maukkaalta,_ mutta yritin käyttää esimerkkejä nimentö-/osantosijasta.)


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> _Huomasin, että lasissa oli vähän olutta jäljellä._ The amount is partial.
> _Olin todella janoinen, joten join oluen. _The amount is not partial anymore, it is clearly defined by the context. Now this starts to resemble the English articles!



Tämä selkeyttää asiaa. Kiitos v.k.


----------

