# partitive + imperfect



## Gavril

In the following sentences, would _the money_ be translated with _raha/rahat _or _rahaa/rahoja_?

_I took a lot of money out of the automatic teller machine. I'm still spending *the money* now._

_I withdrew money from my account on Sunday, and was still spending *the money* the following Wednesday._

K


----------



## sakvaka

Gavril said:


> In the following sentences, would _the money_ be translated with _raha/rahat _or _rahaa/rahoja_?
> 
> _I took a lot of money out of the automatic teller machine. I'm still spending *the money* now._
> 
> _I withdrew money from my account on Sunday, and was still spending *the money* the following Wednesday._
> 
> K



Partial object is used in the both cases.

_Tuhlaan vieläkin niitä *rahoja*.
... ja tuhlasin *rahoja *vielä seuraavana keskiviikkona._

The verb indicates an action that hasn't been carried to an end.


----------



## Gavril

sakvaka said:


> Partial object is used in the both cases.
> 
> _Tuhlaan vieläkin niitä *rahoja*.
> _



Would you normally use _niitä _(or another demonstrative pronoun) in this context?



> _ ... ja tuhlasin *rahoja *vielä seuraavana keskiviikkona._
> 
> The verb indicates an action that hasn't been carried to an end.



One more example: would you say,

_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahaa/rahoja _[="the money", not "some money"]

or 

_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahat/raha_?


Kiitos v.k.


----------



## Finland

Hello!



Gavril said:


> Would you normally use _niitä _(or another demonstrative pronoun) in this context?


 
I find "Tuhlaan vieläkin niitä rahoja" a bit unidiomatic in Finnish. For me tt would be more natural to say: "Tuhlaan niitä (=rahoja) vieläkin."



Gavril said:


> One more example: would you say,
> 
> _Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahaa/rahoja _[="the money", not "some money"]
> 
> or
> 
> _Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahat/raha_?


 
I'm not sure what the exact English sentence is you want to translate.

If it's "I still had the money" (meaning I had not spent any of it), it could be e.g. "Rahat olivat minulla vieläkin." Definiteness is often conveyed in Finnish with changes in word order, not only by case endings. Your first suggestion (_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahaa/rahoja_) means "I still have/had some money" (if you say "rahoja", you are referring to "pieces of money", i.e. coins or banknotes or different currencies). However, your second suggestion (_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahat/raha_) is not idiomatic. But e.g. "Raha oli minulla vieläkin" would mean "I still had the sum of money with me" and "Rahat olivat minulla vieläkin" would mean "I still had the money".

I hope this helped...

S


----------



## Gavril

Finland said:


> Hello!
> 
> 
> 
> I find "Tuhlaan vieläkin niitä rahoja" a bit unidiomatic in Finnish. For me tt would be more natural to say: "Tuhlaan niitä (=rahoja) vieläkin."
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the exact English sentence is you want to translate. If it's "I still had the money" (meaning I had not spent any of it), it could be e.g. "Rahat olivat minulla vieläkin." Definiteness is often conveyed in Finnish with changes in word order, not only by case endings. Your first suggestion (_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahaa/rahoja_) means "I still have/had some money"



So, if I said,

_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahaa/rahoja
Rahaa/rahoja oli minulla vieläkin
_(and so on with other possible word orders)

it would never mean "I have/had the money", but only "I have some money"?



> (if you say "rahoja", you are referring to "pieces of money", i.e. coins or banknotes or different currencies). However, your second suggestion (_Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahat/raha_) is not idiomatic. But e.g. "Raha oli minulla vieläkin" would mean "I still had the sum of money with me" and "Rahat olivat minulla vieläkin" would mean "I still had the money".



I don't quite understand the difference (in meaning) between 

1)_Rahat olivat minulla vieläkin
_and
2)_Raha oli minulla vieläkin
_
Could you clarify?



> I hope this helped...
> 
> S



It is helping, thanks.


----------



## Finland

Hello!



Gavril said:


> So, if I said,
> 
> _Minulla on/oli vieläkin rahaa/rahoja_
> _Rahaa/rahoja oli minulla vieläkin_
> (and so on with other possible word orders)
> 
> it would never mean "I have/had the money", but only "I have some money"?


 
You are quite right. And remember that the plural rahoja can only be used in somewhat special cases (when referring to coins, banknotes, currencies, sums of money...). The difference between these two is that "Minulla oli vieläkin rahaa" is more or less equivalent to "I still had money (left)", whereas "Rahaa oli minulla vieläkin" is more like "I still had money left (from the sum we've been talking about)". So the latter word order somehow conveys a bit of an idea of more definiteness.



Gavril said:


> I don't quite understand the difference (in meaning) between
> 
> 1)_Rahat olivat minulla vieläkin_
> and
> 2)_Raha oli minulla vieläkin_
> 
> Could you clarify?


 
In nominative, the difference in meaning is ever so slight; if you had rahoja/rahaa, the difference is more noticeable (rahoja --> e.g. coins; rahaa --> money in general).

I hope I am not contradicting myself in my responses... The partitive case together with word order finesses is so tricky that us native speakers often have trouble using it as well.

HTH
S


----------



## Hakro

Finland said:


> I find "Tuhlaan vieläkin niitä rahoja" a bit unidiomatic in Finnish. For me tt would be more natural to say: "Tuhlaan niitä (=rahoja) vieläkin."


In my opinion both sentences are equally idiomatic in Finnish.

For me it would be most natural to say: "Tuhlasin kaiken maanantaina" (I spent it all on Monday).


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Hakro said:


> In my opinion both sentences are equally idiomatic in Finnish.
> 
> For me it would be most natural to say: "Tuhlasin kaiken maanantaina" (I spent it all on Monday).


Us old-timers are in complete agreement! 

GOM


----------

