# plural subjects in existential clauses



## Gavril

Iltaa,

The plural subject of an existential sentence is often in the partitive:

_Portin läpi ryntäsi sotilaita _"Soldiers stormed through the gate"

In this case, the subject is indefinite (the soldiers haven't been mentioned before) and its number is unknown (we don't know exactly how many soldiers there are).

But, would the partitive plural be appropriate in the following cases?

- Definite subject:

"Through the gate stormed the soldiers." (This is a group of soldiers who have been introduced somewhere earlier in the narrative.)

Would this phrase be translated _Portin läpi ryntäsi sotilaita_ or _Portin läpi ryntäsivät sotilaat_?

- An indefinite subject that has a pre-determined quantity:

"On the horse was a brand-new pair of reins." = _Hevosella oli aivan uusia ohjaksia _or _Hevosella oli aivan uudet ohjakset_?

- An indefinite plurale tantum subject (one that always appears in the plural):

"A wedding was taking place in the nearby grove." = _Läheisessä lehdossa oli meneillään häitä _or _Läheisessä lehdossa olivat meneillään häät_?


Kiitos!


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

The partitive plural is wrong in all the three cases you mention. "Valjaat" is possible instead of "ohjakset".


----------



## DrWatson

Gavril said:


> - An indefinite plurale tantum subject (one that always appears in the plural):
> 
> "A wedding was taking place in the nearby grove." = _Läheisessä lehdossa oli meneillään häitä_


This is possible, but *only if* the meaning is ”There were (multiple) weddings taking place in the nearby grove.” However, in the meaning you suggest_ Läheisessä lehdossa olivat meneillään häät_ is the only option.


----------



## hui

Gavril said:


> "A wedding was taking place in the nearby grove." = _Läheisessä lehdossa oli meneillään häitä _or _Läheisessä lehdossa olivat meneillään häät_?



_Läheisessä lehdossa *vietettiin* häitä._


----------



## Hakro

hui said:


> _Läheisessä lehdossa *vietettiin* häitä._


Here _häitä_ is not subject.


----------



## Gavril

I thought of another possible context: what about a noun preceded by an adjective that indicates an indefinite plural quantity, such as _useat, monet, eräät_ etc.?


_Oven läpi ryntäsi(vät) monet kissat / monia kissoja.

Pöydällä oli(vat) useat maljat / useita maljoja.

Tarpoessani kotiin, minun seuraani tuppautui(vat) jotkut kelmit / joitakuita kelmejä.

Maahan ovat soluttautuneet eräät vakoojat / on soluttautunut eräitä vakoojia._


My hunch (based on Google) is that only the last sentence would have the nominative plural (_eräät_): the rest would take the partitive. Is that correct?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

My ear suggests the partitive for each sentence.

CB


----------



## Hakro

There are other possibilities if the sentence goes on:





> _
> Tarpoessani kotiin (no comma here) minun seuraani tuppautuivat jotkut / eräät kelmit, jotka yrittivät pummata rahaa. _I know the exact number of these vilains although I don't say it; if I use the nominative plural, most probably there were two of them. I'd prefer to use _eräät_ instead of _jotkut_.
> _
> Tarpoessani kotiin minun seuraani tuppautui __joitakuita kelmejä,_ jotka yrittivät pummata rahaa_._I'm not sure about the number of these vilains, but there were at least three of them.


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> _Tarpoessani kotiin (no comma here) minun seuraani tuppautuivat jotkut / eräät kelmit, jotka yrittivät pummata rahaa. _I  know the exact number of these vilains although I don't say it;




Isn't this possible with _monet _and _useat _as well, though?

E.g., if I knew that 10 cats had rushed through the door, could I say 

_Oven läpi ryntäsivät monet kissat_

or, if I knew that there were 5 bowls on the table, could I say,

_Pöydällä olivat useat maljat_

Or would this convey the wrong impression to the person listening?


----------



## Hakro

Again, it's important that the sentence goes on and the nominative  plural subject is explained in one way or another, not necessarily by  the exact number:


> _Oven läpi ryntäsivät monet kissat,__ jotka olivat tarpeeksi nopeita paetakseen._
> 
> _Pöydällä olivat useat maljat __täysinäisinä mutta muutamat vain puolillaan._


If you change the word order your first phrase is correct:
- Monet kissat ryntäsivät oven läpi.
The second phrase still needs an explication:
- Useat (or rather "useimmat") maljat olivat pöydällä, mutta oli niitä lattiallakin.


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> Again, it's important that the sentence goes on and the nominative  plural subject is explained in one way or another, not necessarily by  the exact number:
> 
> _Oven läpi ryntäsivät monet kissat,__ jotka olivat tarpeeksi nopeita paetakseen._




How would this be translated into English?

“The many cats that were fast enough to escape rushed through the door”
or
“Many cats, which were fast enough to escape, rushed through the door”?

The first sentence implies that you’ve mentioned all cats (in the context) that were fast enough to escape -- perhaps you're contrasting them with those that were too slow.

The second sentence leaves open the possibility that there were other cats fast enough to escape, but you chose not to mention them.


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> How would this be translated into English?
> 
> “The many cats that were fast enough to escape rushed through the door”
> or
> “Many cats, which were fast enough to escape, rushed through the door”?
> 
> The first sentence implies that you’ve mentioned all cats (in the context) that were fast enough to escape -- perhaps you're contrasting them with those that were too slow.
> 
> The second sentence leaves open the possibility that there were other cats fast enough to escape, but you chose not to mention them.


Now you pushed me against the wall, Gavril!

My imaginary sentence is grammatically correct but the exact meaning is somewhat ambiguous.

Your second interpretation is right, I think, but the first one isn't bad either. In fact, a Finn would use different phrases for both situations. For example:

1) "Kissat, jotka olivat tarpeeksi nopeita, pakenivat oven läpi."
or
2) "Jotkut nopeimmista kissoista ehtivät paeta oven läpi."

I can't explain it better. I hope that someone else could do it.


----------

