Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Finnish term or phrase:
Meitä ei häiritty
English translation:
We were not disturbed
- 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.)
Jul 17, 2011 10:02
12 yrs ago
Finnish term
Meitä ei häiritty
Non-PRO
Finnish to English
Other
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
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?
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +1 | We were not disturbed |
Timo Lehtilä
|
| 5 | We were not disturbed |
Asta Jon
|
| 5 | Meitä ei häiritty |
Hannele Marttila
|
Change log
Jul 17, 2011 10:02: changed "Kudoz queue" from "In queue" to "Public"
Proposed translations
+1
2 hrs
Timo Lehtilä
Finland
Finland
Native in Finnish
Finland
Knowing the subject and skills to say it
Native in: Finnish
Works in: Russian to Finnish, English to Finnish
Related KudoZ points
:
16
Selected
We were not disturbed
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.
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.
Note from asker:
| no comment!!!!!!! after this analysis,my respects!! |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
8 mins
We were not disturbed
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.
--------------------------------------------------
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.
11 mins
Hannele Marttila
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Native in Finnish
&
English
Works in field
United Kingdom
bilingual exp translator/writer
Native in: Finnish 
, English
Works in: Finnish to English, Danish to English, Swedish to English
Related KudoZ points
:
4
Meitä ei häiritty
We were not disturbed = your example sentence.
Meidän = our, so the sentence Meidän ei häiritty would be eq to Our was not disturbed, if you added a noun, e.g. Our luggage was not disturbed, then that would of course work.
Meidän = our, so the sentence Meidän ei häiritty would be eq to Our was not disturbed, if you added a noun, e.g. Our luggage was not disturbed, then that would of course work.
Something went wrong...