# perfect/pluperfect + partitive plural object



## Gavril

Lämpimiä terveisiä,

After the "ikkunalaseja oli uusittu" thread, I'm curious about how a partitive plural object is normally interpreted when the verb is in the perfect or pluperfect (_on/oli tehnyt_), as compared to the simple past tense (_teki_).

I'll start by asking, how would you normally translate the highlighted phrases in the following pairs of sentences? Could there be more than one translation of these phrases, depending on the context?


1.
_Ilmahyökkäys kesti koko yön. Rakennuksia tuhottiin keskustassa, satama-alueella ja stadion ympäristöllä._

_Ilmahyökkäys kesti koko yön. Päivän koitettua rakennuksia oli tuhotettu keskustassa, satama-alueella ja stadion ympäristöllä._


2.
_Löydettyä kultaa etsijät alkoivat virrata laaksoon. Joen varrella rakennettiin tönöjä ja hökkeleitä._

_Löydettyä kultaa etsijät alkoivat virrata laaksoon. Viikon kuluttua oli rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä joen varrella._


Kiitos ja hyvää perjantaita,
Gavril


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

I suppose they'll translate the direct objects as indefinite plural objects (Buildings were destroyed), rather than as imperfect (buildings were being destroyed).


----------



## Gavril

Vitalore said:


> I suppose they'll translate the direct objects as indefinite plural objects (Buildings were destroyed), rather than as imperfect (buildings were being destroyed).



Hi Vitalore,

Why do you suppose that they would translate them in the first way rather than the second?

Like you, I have guesses as to how these sentences would be translated, but -- with all due respect -- my question was for the native speakers to answer, so that I (and other learners) could get a better sense of how these constructions are used in Finnish.


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

Gavril said:


> Hi Vitalore,
> 
> Why do you suppose that they would translate them in the first way rather than the second?



It just sounds more natural. Reading in the imperfect would only sound acceptable in specific contexts.
It's important to stress that both translations are possible, before someone thinks I'm saying that there is only one way to translate those.



> but -- with all due respect -- my question was for the native speakers to answer


This is a discussion forum. Everyone is free to take part in whatever discussion is being held. 

I suggest putting "Only native speakers answer" in the title next time.


----------



## Gavril

Vitalore said:


> It just sounds more natural.


 
Maybe. Speaking for myself, I don't think my (current) knowledge of Finnish is complete enough to be sure which of these interpretations is more natural in any given context. (Especially in light of the recent discussion on this forum about "ikkunalaseja oli uusittu".)


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

_Ilmahyökkäys kesti koko yön. Rakennuksia tuhottiin keskustassa, satama-alueella ja stadion*in* ympäristö*ssä*._
buildings were destroyed

_Ilmahyökkäys kesti koko yön. Päivän koitettua rakennuksia oli tuhotettu keskustassa, satama-alueella ja stadion*in* ympäristö*ssä*._
had been destroyed

_*Kun kultaa oli löydetty, etsijöitä alkoi *virrata laaksoon. Joen varrell*e* rakennettiin tönöjä ja hökkeleitä._
shacks and huts were being built

_*Kun kultaa oli löydetty, etsijöitä alkoi *__ virrata laaksoon. Viikon kuluttua joen varrell*e* oli rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä._
shacks and huts had been built


----------



## Cold Breeze

Grumpy Old Man said:


> Päivän koitettua rakennuksia oli *tuhottu* keskustassa, satama-alueella ja stadionin ympäristössä.


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> _*Kun kultaa oli löydetty, etsijöitä alkoi *__virrata laaksoon. Viikon kuluttua joen varrell*e* oli rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä._
> shacks and huts had been built



What if this sentence were followed by,

_Niistä [tönöistä ja hökkeleistä] ei kaikkia saatu valmiiksi -- jotkut jätetiin keskeneräisiksi kun niiden rakentajat päättivät lähteä muualle._

Would this change your interpretation of the previous sentence?

PS. -- Thanks, Cold Breeze, for the correction.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> _Niistä [tönöistä ja hökkeleistä] ei kaikkia saatu valmiiksi -- jotkut jätetiin keskeneräisiksi kun niiden rakentajat päättivät lähteä muualle._


Not good Finnish.  I suggest: _Niitä ei kaikkia saatu valmiiksi_... or _Kaikkia tönöjä ja hökkeleitä ei saatu valmiiksi..._ 
No changes in the previous sentence.


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> No changes in the previous sentence.



Hmm, so which of these translations would say is most accurate for *oli rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä*, without knowing further context?

1) a certain number of shacks and hovels had been built (i.e., people finished building them)

2) people had done some building of shacks and huts, but they didn't necessarily finish all of them

3) other

Kiitos vielä kerran


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> Hmm, so which of these translations would say is most accurate for *oli rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä*, without knowing further context?
> 
> 1) a certain number of shacks and hovels had been built (i.e., people finished building them)
> 
> 2) people had done some building of shacks and huts, but they didn't necessarily finish all of them
> 
> 3) other
> 
> Kiitos vielä kerran


Number 1.


----------



## Gavril

I talked to another Finnish speaker about this, and he said that a sentence such as *Seiniä oli maalattu näissä rakennuksissa* could be taken to mean "(The) walls had been partially painted in these buildings", because it's easy to imagine painting as a partially finished action (e.g., maybe people finished painting half of a wall and then stopped for the day).

So, if O_li rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä_ would normally be interpreted as "Shacks and hovels had been (fully) built", is that because it's less natural to imagine shacks and hovels being partially completed, compared to walls being partially painted?

(Of course, it's not impossible to imagine partially completed shacks and hovels, but I'm wondering about what people would normally expect.)

Kiitos vielä kerran


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

Gavril said:


> So, if O_li rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä_ would normally be interpreted as "Shacks and hovels had been (fully) built", is that because it's less natural to imagine shacks and hovels being partially completed, compared to walls being partially painted?


Perhaps.  There may of course be some partially completed shacks as well.


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> I talked to another Finnish speaker about this, and he said that a sentence such as *Seiniä oli maalattu näissä rakennuksissa* could be taken to mean "(The) walls had been partially painted in these buildings", because it's easy to imagine painting as a partially finished action (e.g., maybe people finished painting half of a wall and then stopped for the day).


It may mean that (the) walls had been partially painted but more probably it means that some walls had been (entirely) painted and other walls not.


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> It may mean that (the) walls had been partially painted but more probably it means that some walls had been (entirely) painted and other walls not.



Would you say that the same is true of _Oli rakennettu tönöjä ja hökkeleitä_? I.e., which of these interpretations sounds likelier to you?


1) Shacks and hovels had been built: some of them were completed, but not necessarily all of them

2) Shacks and hovels had been built: every one of them was completed

3) Other

(These are the same options from post #10, but I tried to phrase them more clearly this time.)

Also, if "shacks and hovels" above was replaced with "houses" (_Oli rakennettu taloja_), would that change the answer you chose above?


Kiitos kolmannen kerran


----------



## Hakro

Gavril said:


> 1) Shacks and hovels had been built: some of them were completed, but not necessarily all of them
> 
> 2) Shacks and hovels had been built: every one of them was completed


Both are equally possible. Partitive is used because the number of shacks and hovels is undetermined.

Maybe it becomes clearer if we change the sentence a little:

_– Tönöjä ja hökkeleitä oli rakennettu joen varrelle._ – An undetermined number of shacks and hovels had been built at the riverside.
_– Tönöt ja hökkelit oli rakennettu joen varrelle._ – All the shacks and hovels that had been built were built at the riverside, not elsewhere.


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> Both are equally possible. Partitive is used because the number of shacks and hovels is undetermined.
> 
> Maybe it becomes clearer if we change the sentence a little:
> 
> _– Tönöjä ja hökkeleitä oli rakennettu joen varrelle._ – An undetermined number of shacks and hovels had been built at the riverside.



The English sentence suggests that there were no unfinished shacks and hovels -- i.e., *all* of the shacks and hovels mentioned in this sentence were completed.

But, if I understand you correctly, the Finnish sentence is ambiguous (without further context) in regards to how many of the shacks and hovels had been completed. Is that right?


----------



## Hakro

Right, Gavril.

Only the second sentence ("Tönöt ja hökkelit oli rakennettu...") means that all the shacks and hovels had been more or less completed.


----------



## Gavril

Hakro said:


> Right, Gavril.
> 
> Only the second sentence ("Tönöt ja hökkelit oli rakennettu...") means that all the shacks and hovels had been more or less completed.



Incidentally, would the sentence _Eräät/jotkut tönöt ja hökkelit oli rakennettu _have the same ambiguity as _Tönöjä ja hökkeleitä oli rakennettu_? I.e., do both sentences leave open the possibility that some shacks and hovels were left unfinished?


----------



## Hakro

No, in my opinion _"Eräät/jotkut tönöt ja hökkelit oli rakennettu_..." means that they were completed. Instead, "_Tönöjä ja hökkeleitä oli rakennettu..."_ gives the idea that possibly (but not necessarily) some of them were not completed.


----------

