Dear anyone,
Your duolingo forum registration isn't automaticaly transferred to duome forum so in order to join duome forums you need to register with your existing or any other username and email; in any case it's advised that you choose a new password for the forum.
~ Duome Team

[ARCHIVE] Answers to some frequently asked questions

Moderator: greg34bg

User avatar
Fnirk1
Sweden

[ARCHIVE] Answers to some frequently asked questions

Post by Fnirk1 »

originally posted by: KristianKumpula https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/42197699


There are some questions I've encountered much more frequently than others, so I thought that I might as well make a thread about them. These are just the ones I was able to think of off the top of my head on the basis of my personal observations, so feel free to suggest additional ones. I also welcome posting better explanations if something about my answer was unclear, misleading or just straight up wrong. And of course you're also welcome to ask something you've been wondering about regardless of how common your question is.

Note that these answers contain generalisations, and there are exceptions to pretty much any generalisation. In fact, I know for a fact that there are several exceptions to these, but for the sake of trying to keep things as short and simple as I can (and because I'm lazy) I won't attempt to list them.

Q: What is the difference between "tuolla" and "tuossa"? What about "tässä" and"täällä?

A: The adessive ending -lla/-llä makes it approximate whereas the inessive ending -ssa/-ssä makes it precise. I reckon a simple way to sum it up would be like this:

  • Tuolla = (Over) there
  • Tuossa = (Right) there
  • Täällä = (Over) here
  • Tässä = (Right) here

Q: What is the difference between "oikea" and "oikein"? What about "väärä" and “väärin”?

A: "Oikea"is an adjective and "oikein" is an adverb. "Väärä" is an adjective and “väärin is an adverb.

Q: Why is "oikea"/"väärä" wrong in this predicative expression? There is no adverb in the English sentence!

A: While English uses an adjective about something being factually correct or incorrect, or morally right or wrong, Finnish uses an adverb. But note that while the adverb form is used in predicative expressions, the adjective is still used when the word is in the same noun phrase as the thing it refers to. Here's an example: "Oikea vastaus on oikein".

Q: Why is [Finnish translation beginning with "Se on" or"Siellä on"] wrong?

A: In correct Finnish translations, the "se" would be a translation of an antecedent and "siellä" would be a translation of a place adverbial. However, English sentences beginning with "it is" and "there is/are" often employ a dummy subject instead of an antecedent or an adverbial. Finnish does not use dummy subjects at all, which is why they cannot be translated."It is raining" translates to"sataa" and "there is a wolf in the forest" translates to "metsässä on susi”..

Q: What is the difference between “mutta” and “vaan”?

A: These words can trip up English speaking learners quite easily because both mean"but" in English, and yet they can't be used interchangeably. If you speak German and/or Swedish, the answer is simple: "Mutta" translates to the German word"aber" and to the Swedish word "men", whereas "vaan" translates to the German word "sondern" and to the Swedish word "utan" (the conjunction). If you're not familiar with those words, this is how it works it works in layman's terms: "Vaan" is used in a sentence where something is negated and it's used to introduce information that contradicts the negated information. "Mutta" is used in other situations where "but" would be used. Here's a couple of examples

"Suomi ei kuulu Skandinavian maihin, mutta se kuuluu Pohjoismaihin." = "Finland is not one of the Scandinavian countries, but it is one of the Nordic countries." The sentence begins with a negative clause but it still uses "mutta" as the conjunction because the fact that Finland is one of the Nordic countries does not contradict the notion that Finland is one of the Scandinavian countries since these are not mutually exclusive things.

"Helsinki ei ole Ruotsissa, vaan se on Suomessa." = "Helsinki is not in Sweden, but it is in Finland." The fact that Helsinki is in Finland contradicts the notion that Helsinki is in Sweden, so "vaan" is used as the conjunction.

Q: Why is the omission of hän/he/se/ne wrong?

A: 3rd person verbs would be ambiguous about what the subject is when the subject is omitted. The same does not apply to 1st person and 2nd person verbs, which is why"minä","me", "sinä" and"te" can be omitted. "Kävelen", for example, can only have"minä" as its subject, so there is no guesswork required if it's omitted. The 3rd person equivalent "Kävelee" can have “hän”, “se” or any noun as its subject. That's quite a lot of options.

Q: When am I supposed to use partitive case / When am I supposed to add the extra a/ä at the end?

A: Ah, thereby hangs a tale. Partitive case is applied to...

  • ...noun phrases modified by a singular numeral (except "yksi”). “Kaksi poroa” = “Two reindeer”
  • ...noun phrases modified by an expression of an amount.“Suomessa on monta järveä” = “There are many lakes in Finland”
  • ...plural noun phrases with indefinite referents in existential clauses and ownership clauses even when not modified by a numeral or an expression of an amount, i.e. the number/amount is unspecified. In other words, it is used in words that would usually be modified by “some” or “any” in an English translation. If the referents are definite, nominative case is used instead. “Kaupassa on karjalanpiirakoita” = “There are (some) Karelian pasties in the shop”
  • ...mass nouns (usually). “Pullossa on viinaa” = “There is liquor in the bottle”
  • ...the target of an ongoing action. “Rakennamme saunaa” = “We are building a sauna”
  • ...the target of an irresultative action. "Halasin karhua" = "I hugged a bear"
  • ...negated noun phrases in an existential clause or an ownership clause."Minulla ei ole autoa" = "I don't have a car"
  • ...the subject of an existential clause or an ownership clause when the clause is in the form of a question and the inquirer either isn't sure what answer to expect or expects a negative answer. When the inquirer is sure that the answer will be positive, nominative case is used instead. "Onko teillä juustohöylää?” = “Do you have a cheese slicer?”
  • ...noun phrases preceded by (most) prepositions. "Ilman pipoa" ="Without a woolly hat"
  • ...probably some other not-so-common situations that I can't think of right now.

Q: Why is the Finnish verb singular even though the verb in the English sentence is plural?

A: It's probably because the subject is modified by a numeral in singular form. A noun phrase with a numeral in it has to agree with the numeral about number, i.e. whether the numeral is singular or plural. Likewise, the verb must agree with the subject about the same thing."Kolme puukkoa" (a nominative singular numeral and a partitive singular noun) as a subject would prompt a singular verb, whereas "kolmet puukot" (a nominative plural numeral and a nominative plural noun) would prompt a plural verb. \"Kolmet\" means \"three sets (of something)\".

Q: Why is only a definite/indefinite article allowed in the English translation? I thought Finnish doesn't have any equivalents of articles.

A: Well, yes. And no... kind of. It can be ambiguous whether something is definite or indefinite, but there can still be a sense of definiteness or indefiniteness even without articles. When it comes to plural nouns, it can be caused by grammatical case. The translation of "Minulla on passit", where the noun is in nominative plural form, would be "I have the passports". If you swap the nominative plural form with the partitive plural form "passeja", then the translation would change into"I have passports".

Another thing that can create a sense of definiteness or indefiniteness for a noun is word order. In English, whether a noun is definite or indefinite usually depends on whether it has been mentioned before. In Finnish, whether something has been mentioned before can affect word order. Therefore, the choice of word order can determine which article a noun in the English translation probably should have. For example, "There is a bear walking in the forest" translates to "Metsässä kävelee karhu". Starting the sentence with the forest implies that the forest has been referred to previously, so its English equivalent should probably have a definite article. If you swap the order of the nouns so that the Finnish sentence turns into “Karhu kävelee metsässä”, then I would translate it as “The bear is walking in a forest”. Now that the sentence begins with the bear, it is implied that the bear has been mentioned before, which is why it got the definite article in the English translation. When the articles for both nouns are the same, your choice of word order in the Finnish translation doesn't matter, but when they are different, you should generally put the Finnish equivalent of the definite noun first.

There are also certain words that can be similar to English articles in their potential functions. Common equivalents of "the" are "se" (singular) and "ne" (plural), and common equivalents of“a/an” are “eräs” and “yksi”.

Q: Why is [literal Finnish translation of a progressive/continuous aspect verb phrase] wrong?

A: Finnish doesn't have progressive/continuous aspect as a grammatical construct. "I am walking" and "I walk" both translate to "(minä) kävelen".

Q: Why is [replication of English word order in a Finnish wh-question] wrong?

A: English inverts the subject and the verb in all questions, but in Finnish, there is no need to invert the subject and the verb in questions that have an interrogative word in the beginning instead of a verb. “Missä sinä olet?” means “where are you?” but it literally translates to “where you are?”. Using the English word order “Missä olet sinä?” is grammatically fine but it sounds rather odd.

Q: Why is [alternative placement of an adverbial] wrong?

A: It's probably not. Many of the exercises do not include all possible solutions yet. An adverbial can be placed almost anywhere within its clause as long as its placement does not split a different clause element, although some placements can be somewhat odd.

Q: What is the difference between "onnellinen" and"iloinen"?

A: You won't raise any eyebrows if you use them interchangeably. Both mean "happy", but "onnellinen" tends to refer to a strong sense of satisfaction with the general state of things in one’s life, whereas “iloinen” is more likely to refer to a very good mood.

Q: Why is [mass noun] in nominative case even though the adjective is in partitive case?
A: You're probably referring to a situation where the adjective is in a predicative expression. In that case, a subject in partitive case and a subject predicative which is also in partitive case just don't go together.

Q: Why is "to have some peace and quiet" translated as "olla rauhassa"? Isn't the translation missing some words?

A: It seems that this trips up non-native English speakers in particular because they may not recognise that "to have some peace and quiet" is an idiomatic expression. Idioms can rarely be translated word-for-word, especially between unrelated languages, and this is not one of the exceptions. A literal translation is not possible because Finnish doesn.t have a verb that expresses having something (like"have"), but a kinda literal translation of this expression into Finnish would be "olla rauhassa ja hiljaisuudessa". The thing is, that is not idiomatic at all in Finnish. "Olla rauhassa" is a much more natural way to express what English speakers mean by "to have some peace and quiet".

Q: What is the difference between "mikä" and "mitä"?

A: Both mean “what”, but “mikä” is in nominative singular form and “mitä” is from the same stem and it's in partitive singular form.

Q: When am I supposed to use "todella" and when am I supposed to use "tosi"?

A: As adverbs they are pretty much interchangeable. The main difference is that "tosi" is more colloquial.

Q: Why is there no partitive case after "muutama"? It means "ca few", right?

A: Yes, it does, but it's special because for some reason it's treated the same way as the numeral "yksi", the only singular form numeral that gives nominative case to the noun it modifies.

Q: What is the difference between "iso" and"suuri"?

A: Not much. They can usually be used interchangeably, but "suuri" is somewhat more likely to refer something that could be described as \"grand\" or \"great\". For example, Alexander the Great is known as Aleksanteri Suuri in Finland.

Q: What on earth is a "suuri kieli"? A language with a massive lexicon or what?

A: You may have seen it translated in the course as "a large language", in which case I can understand the confusion. In Finnish, the concept of a large language refers to a language that has a lot of speakers. In other words, a better translation would be "widely-spoken language".

User avatar
norrsken
Sweden

Re: [ARCHIVE] Answers to some frequently asked questions

Post by norrsken »

Archive of this post and its discussion thread: https://archive.ph/4e4H6

Post Reply

Return to “Finnish”