Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
The asker opted for community grading. The question was closed on 2011-07-20 13:54:13 based on peer agreement (or, if there were too few peer comments, asker preference.)
|
Finnish to English translations [Non-PRO]
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters | | Finnish term or phrase: Meitä ei häiritty | | The context is an example in a language book explaining the past tense of ((mennään)) form .Why did not he say Me instead of meidän , knowing that this is the beginning of a negated sentence not the end? |
| Ahmed KamalKudoZ activityQuestions: 29 ( 8 open) ( 1 without valid answers) Answers: 0
| | Local time: 02:15
|
| | We were not disturbed | Explanation:
There are many things here. The passive voice is used here, and the Finnish passive voice is not actually passive, but active with unidentified agent. While in many languages in passive voice the object of the predicate verb is in nominative case and the performer (agent) is in instrumentative or similar (in English preposition ‘by’ is used), in Finnish it is in accusative and agent is not expressed at all (because it is unidentified).
Usually the total object is in accusative in affirmative clauses (Isä maalasi talon, Father painted the house) and in partitive in negative clauses (Isä ei maalannut taloa, Father did not paint the house).
The accusative is nowadays normally similar to the genitive and in modern Finnish grammar books it is also simply often called just genitive, but it has been different earlier (ending ‘-m’). Nowadays the only exceptions are personal pronouns and interrogative pronoun ‘kuka’. They have a distinctive accusative (minut, sinut, hänet, meidät, teidät, heidät and kenet).
Thus, in active voice we usually say affirmatively e.g. “Vartija pidätti meidät (The guard arrested us)” and negatively “Vartija ei pidättänyt meitä (The guard did not arrest us)”, and the same in passive voice affirmatively “Meidät pidättiin (We were arrested)” and negatively “Meitä ei pidätetty (We were not arrested )”.
There are, tough, verbs that (usually) don’t have a total object at all. ‘Häiritä (disturb)’ is one of them. With these verbs, the object is always in partitive: in active voice, “Vartija häiritsi meitä / Vartija ei häirinnyt meitä”, in passive voice, “Meidät häirittiin / Meitä ei häiritty”.
Is it clearer now?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2011-07-17 13:30:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately there are some typos:"Meidät pidättiin" should be "Meidät pidätettiin" and “Meidät häirittiin / Meitä ei häiritty” should be “Meitä häirittiin / Meitä ei häiritty”
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days5 mins (2011-07-19 10:07:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I just noticed a mistake in my writing above. When I said that in passive voice the object is in accusative case, I probably was subconsciously thinking only about the situation when the object is a personal pronoun. If the object is a noun, it is in nominative or in partitive case.
Nevertheless, it can be said that the Finnish passive voice is not the same kind of passive voice as in Indo-European languages, but rather an active voice of unidentified performer. One proof of this interpretation is that when the object is personal pronoun, it is in accusative case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days5 mins (2011-07-19 10:07:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I just noticed a mistake in my writing above. When I said that in passive voice the object is in accusative case, I probably was subconsciously thinking only about the situation when the object is a personal pronoun. If the object is a noun, it is in nominative or in partitive case.
Nevertheless, it can be said that the Finnish passive voice is not the same kind of passive voice as in Indo-European languages, but rather an active voice of unidentified performer. One proof of this interpretation is that when the object is personal pronoun, it is in accusative case.
|
| Selected response from:
 Timo Lehtilä
Local time: 03:15
| Grading comment Selected automatically based on peer agreement.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer |
| |
| Discussion entries: 0 |
|---|
Automatic update in 00:
|
8 mins confidence:  We were not disturbed
Explanation:
meitä is plural form, and me - singular. So in your example the person talks about more than one person.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 min. (2011-07-17 10:12:47 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
sorry, mistake. Me is plural as well, but meitä in this case is used as passive form.
| Asta Jon
Local time: 03:15
Works in field
Native speaker of:  Lithuanian
|
| | | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
11 mins confidence:
2 hrs confidence:  peer agreement (net): +1 We were not disturbed
Explanation:
There are many things here. The passive voice is used here, and the Finnish passive voice is not actually passive, but active with unidentified agent. While in many languages in passive voice the object of the predicate verb is in nominative case and the performer (agent) is in instrumentative or similar (in English preposition ‘by’ is used), in Finnish it is in accusative and agent is not expressed at all (because it is unidentified).
Usually the total object is in accusative in affirmative clauses (Isä maalasi talon, Father painted the house) and in partitive in negative clauses (Isä ei maalannut taloa, Father did not paint the house).
The accusative is nowadays normally similar to the genitive and in modern Finnish grammar books it is also simply often called just genitive, but it has been different earlier (ending ‘-m’). Nowadays the only exceptions are personal pronouns and interrogative pronoun ‘kuka’. They have a distinctive accusative (minut, sinut, hänet, meidät, teidät, heidät and kenet).
Thus, in active voice we usually say affirmatively e.g. “Vartija pidätti meidät (The guard arrested us)” and negatively “Vartija ei pidättänyt meitä (The guard did not arrest us)”, and the same in passive voice affirmatively “Meidät pidättiin (We were arrested)” and negatively “Meitä ei pidätetty (We were not arrested )”.
There are, tough, verbs that (usually) don’t have a total object at all. ‘Häiritä (disturb)’ is one of them. With these verbs, the object is always in partitive: in active voice, “Vartija häiritsi meitä / Vartija ei häirinnyt meitä”, in passive voice, “Meidät häirittiin / Meitä ei häiritty”.
Is it clearer now?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2011-07-17 13:30:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately there are some typos:"Meidät pidättiin" should be "Meidät pidätettiin" and “Meidät häirittiin / Meitä ei häiritty” should be “Meitä häirittiin / Meitä ei häiritty”
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days5 mins (2011-07-19 10:07:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I just noticed a mistake in my writing above. When I said that in passive voice the object is in accusative case, I probably was subconsciously thinking only about the situation when the object is a personal pronoun. If the object is a noun, it is in nominative or in partitive case.
Nevertheless, it can be said that the Finnish passive voice is not the same kind of passive voice as in Indo-European languages, but rather an active voice of unidentified performer. One proof of this interpretation is that when the object is personal pronoun, it is in accusative case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days5 mins (2011-07-19 10:07:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I just noticed a mistake in my writing above. When I said that in passive voice the object is in accusative case, I probably was subconsciously thinking only about the situation when the object is a personal pronoun. If the object is a noun, it is in nominative or in partitive case.
Nevertheless, it can be said that the Finnish passive voice is not the same kind of passive voice as in Indo-European languages, but rather an active voice of unidentified performer. One proof of this interpretation is that when the object is personal pronoun, it is in accusative case.
| Timo Lehtilä
Local time: 03:15
Native speaker of:  Finnish
PRO pts in category: 12
|
| | Grading comment | Selected automatically based on peer agreement. |
| Notes to answerer
Asker: no comment!!!!!!! after this analysis,my respects!!
|
|
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Return to KudoZ list
| Changes made by editors |
|---|
| Jul 17, 2011: | | Kudoz queue | In queue => Public |
|
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | |
| KudoZ™ translation helpThe KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases. See also: Search millions of term translations  |
The translation workplace 
