Kolumni

Finnish Lesson #5 - Direct Objects

19.1.2010 0:01 Mary Nurminen

Teacher in 8th grade English class: "Now, when you have a noun in the sentence which is receiving the action of the verb, so it's the thing that something is being done to, then that is a direct object."

Me: "OK, I understand that but I have a question. Why would I need to know that?"

Teacher in 9th grade Latin class: "In Latin nouns have a different ending depending on their role in a sentence. Direct objects take the accusative case."

Me: "Finally! I find a use for those direct objects."

At that point I thought I had figured out grammar in other languages. Direct object = certain case = certain ending. Cool, I can do that. Later I found out it works the same in German. Even better!

There is a theory in linguistics that all languages share a base set of common rules for organizing the language, so that when you really get into the structures of any language, they are similar. This is called a "universal grammar" and evidently all of us have one of these sets of rules in our heads.

Obviously whoever came up with the theory never had to learn Finnish, because that takes all the rules that are the same in other languages and throws them out the window. You have to teach your brain to rethink everything in ways you never imagined possible.

This direct object thing proves that.

Let's take an example of a sentence in German: I have a dog. If I want to translate that, here is the thought process I need to decide on the ending of the article ein:

First question to myself: Is the noun dog singular or plural?

Question 2: Is it receiving the action of the verb (is something being done to it)?

Answer: It's a direct object, therefore the right form is einen: Ich habe einen Hund.

This takes a bit of thinking but is logical and systematic and doable.

Now, my friends, I invite you into my head to witness the thought process needed to figure out the ending for a direct object in Finnish. I have a sentence, it has a direct object, I have to figure out the ending I give that word. Here is my thought process:

Question 1 to myself: Is the noun (let's take ball) singular or plural?

Question 2: Is something being actually done to the ball, or is it simply being owned? - Hän potki palloa vs. Hänellä on pallo.

Question 3: Is something being done to the ball, or not done to the ball? - Hän potki pallon minulle vs. Hän ei potkinut palloa.

Question 4: If it is plural, are there many of them, or much of them? - Ostin monta palloa vs. Ostin paljon palloja.

Question 5: Is the action something that lasts some time or is maybe still going on, or has the action been totally completed? - Sinä potkit palloa kentällä vs. Sinä potkit pallon katolle.

Question 6: Is the noun an actual thing or is it a person? - Potkin palloa vs. Potkin hänet ulos (personal pronouns are the only things in Finnish which actually have a case for direct objects).

Question 7: Even if the noun is a person, is something being done to the person, or not done to them? - Potkin hänet ulos vs. En potkinut häntä ulos.

Question 8: Is the thing being done to the ball that someone loves it or likes it? - Rakastan palloa vs. Pidän pallosta.

Question 9: Does the ball belong to me or someone else, or is it just a ball and it doesn't matter who owns it? - Potkin palloasi vs. Potkin palloa.

Question 10: If it belongs to someone, do I have to add a case before the ownership ending or not? - Potkin pallosi katolle vs. Potkin hänen palloaan.

Question 11: What the heck is that ending anyway - palloaan? That makes no sense whatsoever. I've never understood that one.

Finally, after going through all 11 of these questions, after considering and deciding on a total of 6 or 7 potential endings, after thinking myself into a headache, I can, with (almost) full confidence, produce the following sentence:

"Hän potki palloa."

Mary Nurminen juhlii 20:ttä vuottaan Suomessa kirjoittamalla sarjaa suomalaisten perusolemuksesta.

Kommentoi artikkelia