  Finnish sentences are formed of the same elements as those found in other European languages—subjects, predicates, objects, attributes, etc.; but, as the simplest phrases offer certain peculiarities, it is well, before analysing the use of the various forms, to give some general rules. The Subject.I. The Subject is in the nominative case if it is total, that is to say, if something is predicated of the whole of the subject. Thus, ihmiset kuolevat, men die, because the verb applies to the whole race of men; lapset tulevat, the children come, that is to say, all the children in question. Personal pronouns and a substantive in the singular always are in the nominative, when subject to a sentence. In other words, the subject is put in the nominative, (1) when the proposition is universal. Ihmiset kuolevat, men die; linnut lentÄvÄt, birds fly. (2) When it is preceded by the definite article or other determinative adjective in English. Sotamiehet lÄksivÄt, the soldiers set out; nÄmÄt pojat olevat ahkerat, these boys are industrious. (3) When the subject is a single definite substantive or pronoun, which is really the same as the case of an universal proposition. II. But the subject is put in the partitive case, if something is predicated, not of its whole extent, but of part of it. Thus, one says viini on hyvÄÄ, wine is good; viini on pÖydÄllÄ, the wine is on the table; but viiniÄ on pÖydÄllÄ, there is some wine on the table. Similarly, miehet tulevat, the men are coming; but miehiÄ tulee, some men are coming. It is to be noticed— (1) That in negative phrases, where the verb is ei ole, ei nÄy, ei kuulu, ei tunnu, etc. (which are generally rendered in English by such phrases as ‘there is no,’ or ‘there is not’), the subject is always in the partitive, e.g. siellÄ ei ole ketÄÄn, there is nobody there; tÄssÄ joessa ei ole kaloja, there are no fish in this river. (2) The partitive can only be the subject to an intransitive verb, because the mere fact of any word being the subject to a transitive verb implies that the whole or a definite part of the subject is regarded as acting. Thus, one can say, varkaita tuli talooni, some thieves came into my house; but some thieves stole my things must be rendered by varkaat (or jotkut varkaat) varastivat tavarani. The subject can be altogether omitted if it is a pronoun of the first or second person, and also in certain impersonal expressions, like tuulee, it is windy. In such sentences as on mahdotonta tehdÄ sitÄ, it is impossible to do this, the verbal noun is to be regarded as the subject. Such sentences as one says, or people say, where the subject is indefinite, are expressed in Finnish either by the passive verb (v. p. 181), or by the third person plural, no noun or pronoun being employed to represent the subject. Sanovat pÄÄskysten jo tulleen, they say the swallows have already come; VenÄjÄllÄ hakkaavat paljo metsÄÄ, they cut a great deal of wood in Russia. The third person sing. is also used in this sense: kesÄllÄ elÄÄ vaikka ilmalla, in summer one can live easily (literally, on air); tekee minkÄn jaksaa, one does as much work as one can. The second person sing. is also used in this impersonal sense, much as in Russian. KÄvelet kadulla, et nÄe mitÄÄn, mutta yht’ÄkkiÄ putoat kuopaan, one walks along the street, sees nothing, and suddenly tumbles into a hole. The Predicate.The verb of a sentence usually agrees in number with the subject, if the latter is in the nominative. But (1) If the subject is in the partitive, either sing. or plural, the verb is always in the sing. The real subject of the verb in such cases is not the partitive itself, but such a word as joukko, paljo, or vÄhÄ understood before it. (2) If the subject is a noun with a numeral (which in Finnish requires the partitive after it), the verb is also in the singular. (3) When the verb olla is used with the adessive in the construction rendered by the verb ‘have’ in English, it always remains in the 3rd sing., no matter what the subject may be. (4) In proverbs, the Kalevala, and popular speech generally, a singular verb is very frequently found with a plur. nominative. Such an irregularity is clearly rendered much easier and less glaring by the analogy of the cases quoted above. The verb olla, to be, is sometimes omitted, especially in proverbial phrases. Oma maa mansikka, muu maa mustikka, one’s own land is a strawberry, foreign lands are only blackberries. Ei pyyssÄ kahden jakoa, a partridge is not enough for two. If the predicate takes the form of an auxiliary with a noun or adjective, this latter may be put in several cases. I. In the nominative, when the complement expresses a quality inherent in the subject, without any reference to other things. II. But it is put in the partitive if the subject is regarded as referred to a class in common with which the subject shares the quality in question. Thus, veitset ovat terevÄt means these knives, or the knives are sharp; but veitset ovat terÄviÄ means knives are sharp, or It is noticeable that— (a) If the subject is in the sing., and denotes a living being, the complement must be in the nominative; one must say ihminen on kuolevainen, not kuolevaista. (b) If the subject denotes a part of the body, the complement must be also in the nominative: Hiukset ovat mustat, the hair is black. KÄdet ovat tarpeelliset, hands are necessary. III. The complement is put in the essive if it denotes the state in which a thing is at a given time. Thus, isÄni on kipeÄnÄ, my father is (now) ill; isÄni on kipeÄ, my father is an invalid. HÄn on pappi, he is a clergyman; but hÄn on jo kauan ollut pappina, he has long been a clergyman. Suomenmaa on osa VenÄjÄn valtakuntaa, Finland is a part of the Russian empire; but tÄhÄn vuosisataan asti Suomenmaa oli osana Ruotsin valtakunnasta, till the beginning of this century Finland formed part of the kingdom of Sweden. Often there is little difference between the nominative and essive. Thus one can say either sydÄn on suruja tÄysi, or tÄynnÄ, the heart is full of woe; but tÄynnÄ gives a more precise and literal idea of fullness than tÄysi. IV. With the other auxiliaries, signifying to become, or pass into a state (tulla, ruveta, muuttua, etc.), the complement is put in the translative. Ilma muuttuu lÄmpimÄksi, the weather grows warm. Poika rupesi palvelijaksi, the boy began to be a servant. Ukko kÄy heikoksi, the old man gets weak. HÄn joutui tyÖmieheksi, he became a workman. Such sentences as it is impossible to go, or it is necessary for you to go, may be rendered in Finnish as mahdotonta on mennÄ, or tarpeellista on ettÄ menette; but in both cases the real In such sentences the adjective, combined with the verb olla, can be put either in the partitive or in the nominative; but it is very hard, not only to give rules for the employment of the two cases, but even to state the exact difference of meaning between them. As has been seen above, kivi on kova means the stone is hard, but kivi on kovaa, the stone belongs to the class of hard things. The same distinction appears to prevail in the case under consideration, but, as the difference is very subtle, it is not surprising that it is often hard to trace. On the whole, the partitive is more usual, because the use of the nominative implies, strictly speaking, that the subject and the complement are co-extensive. But the nominative is more definite, inasmuch as it vaguely implies the existence of particular personal or temporal conditions. Thus, parasta on mennÄ is the equivalent of it is best to go; and it is perfectly logical to use the partitive, as clearly it is not meant that the terms going and best are co-extensive. But paras on mennÄ means rather the best thing for us under the circumstances is to go; and in this case the use of the nominative is also logical, because the two terms are co-extensive. It can be easily imagined that with so slight a distinction the nominative and partitive are used almost indifferently in most cases. Thus, it is equally correct to say on surkea nÄhdÄ sinua tuossa tilassa, or on surkeata, it is sad to see you in this position. But it is noticeable that— (1) Parempi and hyvÄ are always used in the nominative. Parempi on odottaa, it is better to wait. HyvÄ on olla terveenÄ, it is good to be healthy. In the case of parempi, at any rate, this is quite natural, as there can hardly be said to be a class of better things without reference to particular circumstances. But this point cannot be pressed, as other comparatives are used in the partitive. (2) In such phrases as on mahdotonta, it is impossible; onko luvallistra, is it allowable; onko mahdollista, is it possible? the partitive is nearly always used. The Object.The object, like the subject, can be either total or partial. It is regarded as total when the whole of the object is represented as affected by the action of a transitive verb, and partial when only a part of it is affected by such action. Thus in mies ampui linnut, the man shot the birds, the object is total; but in mies ampui lintuja, the man shot some birds, it is partial, because in the first case no birds are thought of except those shot, who all come under the action of the verb, whereas in the second there is a vague reference to all existing birds, of which some only have been shot. Further, the object is regarded as partial whenever the action of the verb is continuous or incomplete, because the action is, so to speak, extending over the object, but has not yet embraced the whole of it. Thus, in minÄ kirjoitan kirjettÄ, I am writing a letter, the object is regarded as partial; but in minÄ olen kirjoittanut kirjeen, I have written a letter, it is total. The object of a negative verb is always in the partitive. The object may be put—
By accusative is meant that case which corresponds in the singular with the genitive, and in the plural with the nominative. I. The total object of an active finite verb, in any mood but the imperative, is put in the accusative, unless it is a cardinal number. HÄn myi hevosen, he sold the horse. Veljeni panee rahat taskuun, my brother puts the money in his pocket. Ammuin pyyt metsÄssÄ, I shot the partridges in the wood; but ammuin viisi pyytÄ, I shot five partridges. II. The Object is put in the partitive if it is partial, whatever the verb may be. From what has been said above it will be seen that this implies that the partitive must be used:— (1) When the object is strictly speaking partial and denotes a part of something, not a whole. Antakaa minulle maitoa, teetÄ, etc., give me some milk, some tea, etc. HÄn sÖi leipÄÄ ja voita, he ate some bread and butter. IsÄ antoi rahaa pojalle, the father gave the boy some money. (2) When the verb is negative. En saanut kirjaa, I did not receive the book. Me emme tunne ystÄvÄÄsi, we do not know your friend. ÄlÄ revi kirjaa, don’t tear the book. Lasta ei rakasteta, the child is not loved. (3) When the action of the verb is continuous and not finished. HÄn lukee kirjaa, he is reading the book. SeppÄ takoo rautaa, the smith is hammering the iron. HÄn juuri toimittaa sitÄ asiata, he is just now doing the business. Often there is a difference in the meaning of a verb, according as it is followed by the accusative or partitive; the former denoting that the action is more complete. Han lÖi koiraa, he struck the dog; but hÄn lÖi koiran, he killed the dog. HÄn repi kirjaa, he tore the book; but repi kirjan, he tore the book to pieces. A great many verbs never take a total object, because from the nature of their signification, their action cannot be definite and complete, but must be regarded as continuous. This is especially the case with verbs expressing a feeling. Niin rakasti Jumala maailmaa, so God loved the world. Neuvoin ystÄvÄÄni olemaan menemÄttÄ, I advised my friend not to go. Odotin hÄntÄ kaksi tuntia, I waited two hours III. The object is also put in the nominative— (1) If it is the total object of an imperative. Anna leipÄ pojalle, give the boy the bread. Vie hevonen talliin, take the horse to the stable. (2) If it is the total object of an infinitive, which depends on an imperative, and sometimes in other cases (vide p. 185). KÄske tuoda ruoka pyÖtÄÄn, order the food to be put on the table. Antakaa lÄhettÄÄ sÄhkÖsanoma, have a telegram sent. (3) If it is a cardinal number. Maksoin kolme ruplaa, I paid three rubles. (4) As has already been stated, the so-called passive is an impersonal verb with its total object in the nominative and its partial object in the partitive. For a detailed explanation, vide p. 181. An intransitive verb can sometimes take an accusative after it to express the result of its action. Äiti makasi lapsensa kuoliaaksi, the mother lay on her child and killed it (lit. slept her child dead). Juoksi itsensÄ vÄsyksiin, he ran himself tired. HÄn joi itsensÄ siaksi, he drank himself silly. Puhui suunsa puhtaaksi, he spoke out his mind. Of the Agreement of Substantives and Adjectives with one another.As a rule, an adjective agrees with a noun in case and number. HyvÄ mies, a good man; hyvÄt miehet, good men. NÄissÄ suurissa kaupungeissa, in these large towns. KÖyhille lapsille, to the poor children. There are, however, a considerable number of exceptions. (1) Adjectives, as well as substantives, from which they can hardly be distinguished, enter very readily into composition as the first member of a compound word, and then are not declined, e.g. mustameri, the Black Sea. IsokyrÖ, VÄhÄkyrÖ, names of villages. Cf. such expressions as mennyt vuonna, rankka sateella, tuiskusÄÄllÄ, pakkasilmalla. (2) Some adjectives are never declined: aika, kelpo, oiva, ensi, viime, eri, joka, koko, nyky, pikku. Ensi maanantaina, on next Monday. Kelpo miehelle, to the good man. Eri osat, separate parts. Joka paikassa, in every place. (3) A certain number of adjectives and pronouns, instead of following the regular construction, take after them an instructive plur. or a partitive sing., e.g. olla pahoilla mielin, to be in a good temper; tulla hyville mielin, to get into a good temper. Samalla ajoin, at the same time. Kaikissa paikoin, everywhere. Omilla korvin or silmin, with one’s own eyes or ears. NÄillÄ seuduin, in this part of the world. (4) The words kulta, dear; parka, raiska, raukka, riepu, poor, wretched; vaivainen, poor; vainaja, dead; paha, pahanen, polo, polonen, poor, though written separately, form a sort of compound with a substantive, which they may either precede or follow. Only the last of the two words is declined. Thus, poika polosella oli kiire, or polo pojalla, the poor boy had to hurry. ÄlÄ suututa Äiti kultaani, or kulta ÄitiÄni, do not anger my dear mother. MinÄ en nÄhnyt lapsi parkaani, I have not seen my poor child. Woi minua mies parkaa, woe is me, poor man. As will be perceived from the rules given above (p. 124), an adjective predicated of a substantive does not always agree with the latter, but may be in the partitive, essive, or translative, when the substantive is in the nominative. A substantive in apposition to another is usually in the same case. It is to be noted that in such expressions as the town of Petersburg, the Emperor Alexander, the Finnish idiom conforms to the English in this respect, that if the object is inanimate, the proper name is put in the genitive. Helsingin kaupunki, the town of Helsingfors. Suomenmaa, Finland. In the case of a river either the nominative or genitive can be used. Nevan joki or Neva joki, the river Neva. But if the proper name denotes an animate object, or a ship, it is put in the nominative, and remains in that case, even though the word in apposition to it is inflected. Keisari Suuriruhtinas Georg Aleksandrovitschin kanssa, the Emperor with the Grand Duke George Alexandrovitch. Professori Alquistin kuolema on suuri vahinko Suomelle, the death of Professor Alquist is a great blow to Finland. When a word in apposition denotes the state of the subject at a given time, and not a general characteristic, it is put in the essive case. Poikana hÄn oli sairas, as a boy he was ill. The Article.There is no article in Finnish. Sometimes yksi (one) is used to represent the indefinite article, and in poetry the definite article is frequently expressed by a pronoun, such as tuo or se. The rules given above will have made it clear, however, that under some circumstances Finnish can mark by the use of the cases the same distinction which we mark by the article. It may be said roughly that the nominative generally represents a substantive with the definite article in English (this would be still more true of French), and the partitive a substantive without an article. Thus, linnut ovat puussa means the birds are |
|
