Clause equivalents are syntactic structures rather than a matter of verb forms, but they are described here because they are based on participles and infinitives. At the extreme, any participle or infinitive could be interpreted as a clause equivalent.
A clause equivalent is a syntactic construct that is not a clause (it lacks a predicate verb) but has a meaning that corresponds to a clause. For example, the word odottaessani is a clause equivalent, corresponding to kun odotan or kun odotin, “while I am waiting” or “when I was waiting”. The word consists of the verb stem odotta- (to wait), the 3rd infinitive suffix e, the inessive suffix ssa, and the 1st person singular suffix ni. Thus, it might be described as somewhat like “in my waiting”.
A clause equivalent is not used alone but as part of a sentence, like a subclause. For example, the sentence Odottaessani join kahvia (While waiting, I had coffee) is similar to Kun odotin, join kahvia (When I waited, I had coffee). In practice, the latter is not quite natural; we would rather write a little longer, e.g. Sillä aikaa kun odotin, join kahvia.
“Clause equivalent” is not a commonly used term, and it is really just an imitation of the conventional Finnish term lauseenvastike. (The expression “clause replacement” has also been used.) Dictionaries may translate it e.g. as “participial phrase”, but the verb forms used can be infinitives, too. Some modern grammars do not use the term lauseenvastike but just compound words with rakenne (structure, construct) as the second part, e.g. temporaalirakenne.
Clause equivalents are used in English, too, though usually not called that way. For example, the phrase “a chair designed by Alvar Aalto” corresponds to the expression “a chair that Alvar Aalto designed”, so we can say that “designed by Alvar Aalto” is a clause equivalent (for a relative clause). In the Finnish expression, Alvar Aallon suunnittelema tuoli, the word order is different and so are the grammatical constructs. The clause equivalent Alvar Aallon suunnittelema consists of a special verb form preceded by an expression for the agent of the action, in the genitive.
Usually a clause equivalent is longer than one word, and in written language it can be very long—and difficult even to native speakers to understand. The core part is always a verb form, namely a participle or an infinitive, and there can be other parts that relate to the verb. For example, odottaessani sinua eilen is equivalent to the clause “while I was waiting for you yesterday”, so the verb form has both an object (sinua, for you) and an adverbial of time (eilen, yesterday). In the example, the word order is the same as in the corresponding subclause kun odotin sinua eilen, though for reasons of style, rhythm, or emphasis, another order can be used, e.g. eilen sinua odottaessani.
When the core part is a participle, it is more or less obligatory to put the related parts before the core part, e.g. Alvar Aallon 1930-luvulla suunnittelema tuoli (a chair designed by Alvar Aalto in the 1930s). The adverbial expressing time, 1930-luvulla, is placed before the verb form, in contrast with an expression with a subclause: tuoli, jonka Alvar Aalto suunnitteli 1930-luvulla.
Clause equivalents are often described as typical of Finnish and as having great expressive power. There is much truth in this, but clause equivalents often make texts hard to read. Especially when a sentence contains several, possibly nested clause equivalents, even native speakers may have great difficulties in understanding what it says.
Clause equivalents are not used much in free speech. We don’t say odottaessani sinua eilen but kum mä odotin sua eilen, and in informal language, we probably write the same way, just using standard Finnish forms: kun odotin sinua eilen.
However, some clause equivalents are in common use as simple short phrases. For example, the form odottaessa (without personal suffix) might be used to mean “while (someone is) waiting”, and mennen tullen, “on the way there and back”, literally “going (and) coming”, consists of two clause equivalents.
The following table summarizes the types of clause equivalents. The connective that expresses the type of the corresponding clause is written in bold here. Note: different descriptions of Finnish present this concept in somewhat differing ways.
|
Verb form |
Example |
Corresponding clause |
English translation |
|
present participle, genitive |
näen hänen syövän |
näen, että hän syö |
I see that he/she is eating |
|
past participle, genitive |
sanoin hänen syöneen |
sanoin, että hän on syönyt |
I said that he/she has eaten |
|
II infinitive, |
istuin syöden |
istuin siten, että söin |
I was sitting so that I was eating |
|
II infinitive, |
syödessäni |
kun syön/söin |
while I am/was eating |
|
past participle, |
syötyäni |
kun olin syönyt |
when (after) I had eaten |
|
I infinitive, nominative |
käskin hänen syödä |
käskin, että hän syö |
I told him to eat |
|
I infinitive, |
syödäkseni |
jotta söisin |
in order to eat |
|
III infinitive, |
syömällä |
sen avulla, että syön |
by eating |
|
past participle, passive |
syömäni |
jonka söin |
that I ate |
In clause equivalents, the verb form is always in singular, even if the agent is in plural, e.g. sanoin heidän syöneen (I sad that they have eaten).
In the following subsections, the different kinds of clause equivalents are described. The names partly correspond to traditional grammar terms, partly just reflect the type of the meaning.
A referative clause equivalent corresponds to a “that” subclause (että clause in Finnish), and it is typically used in sentences that describe what someone observes, thinks, believes, or knows. The verb form used is the genitive singular of an active participle of the verb. It is in the present tense form, if the action referred to is simultaneous with (or later than) the action in the main clause, and in the past tense form, if the referred action is earlier than in the main clause. Examples:
Thus, the system of tenses in a referative clause equivalent is simpler than in a corresponding subclause: the past tense form may correspond to past tense, perfect, or pluperfect.
Referative clause equivalents can be used in the 4th person, too, but then the verb form is a passive participle, in the present tense or in the past tense. Examples:
A contextual clause equivalent typically corresponds to a “so that” subclause (siten, että clause in Finnish), describing things that take place simultaneously with the action of the main clause. Sometimes it could be translated with a “while” subclause. The verb form used is the instructive singular of the II infinitive of the verb. This is the conventional grammatical interpretation; the instructive singular is indistinguishable from the genitive singular, and the form does not have a typical instructive (instrumental) meaning here. In some contexts, such a meaning may be present, as in Hän saapui juosten (He/she arrived running, by running).
A contextual clause equivalent is often mistakenly used to describe some subsequent action. People may write Joukkue teki heti alussa maalin voittaen lopulta 3–1 (The team scored a goal at the very start and eventually won 3–1). This is incorrect, because the team did not win the game when it made the first goal. In standard Finnish, a correct expression uses two main clauses connected with the ja (and) conjunction: Joukkue teki heti alussa maalin ja voitti lopulta 3–1.
There are two types of temporal clause equivalent, present tense and past tense.
A present tense temporal clause equivalent corresponds to a “when” or “while” subclause (kun clause in Finnish). It describes at what time the action of the main clause takes place, took place, or will take place. The time is expressed as being the time of another action, described by the clause equivalent. The form of the verb is the inessive of the II infinitive. Examples:
A past tense temporal clause equivalent corresponds to an “after” subclause (sen jälkeen kun clause in Finnish). It describes that the action of the main clause is after the time of another action, described by the clause equivalent. The form of the verb is partitive singular of the past participle. Examples:
Temporal clause equivalents have widespread nonstandard usage in some writing styles. The present tense form is mistakenly used to describe some secondary action that takes place after the action in the main clause. It is not uncommon to write Veikko saapui ensimmäisenä maaliin Petterin tullessa toiseksi, even though by standard rules it means “Veikko reached the goal first, at the same time when Petteri made to the second place”. The apparent purpose is to make the second place less important by demoting it into a clause equivalent. However, in standard Finnish, a correct expression uses two main clauses connected with the ja (and) connective: Veikko saapui ensimmäisenä maaliin, ja Petteri tuli toiseksi.
A general clause equivalent contains the basic form of a verb, the short form of the I infinitive. It can be regarded as normal use of such forms, and most grammars do not even classify it as a clause equivalent. A sentence like käskin hänen syödä (I told him to eat) cannot be naturally transformed to a structure with a subclause; käskin, että hän syö is somewhat artificial, like English “I told that he eat”. Yet, the sentence logically has a clause, hän syö, embedded into another clause using an infinitive construct, hänen syödä.
Such an analysis makes it more understandable that the agent of the subordinate action is expressed using the genitive—it corresponds to the structure of other clause equivalents, e.g. pojan syömä leipä (the bread eaten by the boy; literally: boy’s eaten bread).
An intentional clause equivalent primarily corresponds to an “in order to” or “for” subclause (jotta clause in Finnish). The form of the verb is the translative of the I infinitive, always with a possessive suffix. Examples:
This form cannot be used in the 4th person.
If the predicate of the main clause does not express intentional activity but rather need for something, such as tarvita (to need) or vaatia (require), the construct describes a more or less objective requirement. For example, Yritys tarvitsee lisärahoitusta välttääkseen konkurssin (The company needs additional funding to avoid bankruptcy) does not as such express intentionality. We can still call it intentional in a broader sense: additional funding, if given, would be given for the given purpose.
In some literary styles, the translative of the I infinitive is also used to express simple temporal relations, though usually so that the latter event is somehow unexpected or contrasts with the former. For example, Hän tuli paikalle vain havaitakseen, että kaikki olivat jo lähteneet (He arrived just to observe that everyone had already left). This is not meant say that he arrived in order to observe that; rather, the observation was unexpected. Such usage has been frowned upon in language guides, but it is now officially approved, though with warnings about potential ambiguity or unintended humor, as in He menivät naimisiin vuonna 1990 erotakseen vuonna 2005, which could be read as saying “They married in 1990 in order to divorce in 2005”. It is meant to say “They married in 1990 but divorced in 2005”, which is naturally expressed in Finnish by He menivät naimisiin vuonna 1990, mutta erosivat vuonna 2005.
An instrumental clause equivalent expresses a method used to perform the action described in the main clause. It may correspond to a “with” or ”by” expression in English. In Finnish, a siten että (so that) subclause can be used, though its meaning might be less evident. The verb form used is the adessive singular of the III infinitive.
Example: Voit laihtua syömällä vähemmän = Voit laihtua siten, että syöt vähemmän (You can lose weight by eating less).
This type is used even in spoken language, though usually in very simple forms, typically so that the verb form has just a noun as an object, e.g. lukemalla ohjeet (by reading the instructions). It can be more complicated, like tekemällä uuden esityksen (by making a new proposal), and in written language, even much more complicated.
Other case forms of the III infinitive than the above-mentioned adessive could be regarded as clause equivalents. For example, in the sentence Hän istui lukemassa kirjaa (He/she sat reading a book), the construct lukemassa kirjaa obviously corresponds to a clause (such as ja luki kirjaa). Such use of the inessive of the III infinitive is close to a contextual clause equivalent like lukien kirjaa, but different emphasis.
The abessive of the III infinitive corresponds to a negative clause. For example, Hän istui tekemättä mitään (He/she sat without doing anything) corresponds to Hän istui siten, että ei tehnyt mitään.
However, Finnish grammars have a tradition of listing only a certain limited set of constructs as clause equivalents.
Any participle that is used as an attribute before a noun could be classified as a clause equivalent. For example, in the English expression “a stolen car”, the verb form “stolen” could be replaced by the relative clause “that someone stole”. Similarly in Finnish, varastettu auto corresponds to auto, joka varastettiin.
However, Finnish grammars consider only somewhat more complicated expressions as clause equivalents corresponding to a relative clause. Basically, the concept applies only if the agent of the action is expressed somehow. Therefore it does not apply to expressions using 4th person participles. Instead, it applies to other past tense passive participles. Examples:
Thus, a relative clause equivalent corresponds to a relative clause, i.e. a subclause that starts with the relative pronoun joka (or mikä) in a case form required by the context. Additional examples:
Relative clause equivalents are used in spoken language, too. Typically they are used in a spoken form where a possessive suffix is not used and a personal pronoun is used instead, e.g. mun varastama auto or sun eilen kaupasta ostama lohi.
Similar constructs using present tense participles like varastettava (e.g. varastettava auto “a/the car that is being stolen or will be stolen”) do not normally have an agent expressed. However, in phrases like hiiren mentävä aukko = aukko, josta hiiri menee (a hole that a mouse passes through, i.e. can go through), the agent is expressed, in genitive (hiiren), so they might be classified as clause equivalents. A similar example is käsin kosketeltava (concrete) = jota käsin kosketellaan (that is touched by hands) or, by its meaning, rather jota voi käsin kosketella (that can be touched by hands).
The examples in the table of clause equivalents either do not specify the agent or specify it with a possessive suffix. This means that they correspond to clauses with a personal pronoun as the subject (possibly just implied by the verb form). However, this is a special case, though a common one.
When a clause equivalent corresponds to a clause with a subject other than a personal pronoun, the subject is represented by a phrase in the genitive. For example, in the sentence Tiedän Matin tuntevan sinut (I know that Matti knows you), the clause equivalent Matin tuntevan sinut corresponds to the clause Matti tuntee sinut. The subject of this clause, Matti, is represented by the genitive Matin.
The same principle is applied if the subject of the corresponding clause is a personal pronoun but refers to a person other than the subject of the main clause. For example, we say Tiedän hänen tuntevan sinut (I know that he/she knows you) and Tiedän sinun tuntevan hänet (I know that you know him/her); the latter could in principle be expressed as Tiedän tuntevasi hänet, expressing the agent with a possessive suffix, but this is very rare and probably sounds odd to most people.
If the predicate of the main clause is in the 3rd person and the agent of the clause equivalent is a 3rd person pronoun, there is an essential difference in meaning depending on the use of the genitive hänen or heidän versus a possessive suffix:
In a clause equivalent, there is no accepted way to have the verb in a negative form. Sometimes expressions like sanoin en syöneeni are used, but this is nonstandard and sounds odd. Negating the predicate of the sentence is possible, e.g. En sanonut syöneeni, but then the meaning is “I did not say that I have eaten” rather than “I said I have not eaten”. To express the latter, a subordinate clause instead of a clause equivalent is needed: Sanoin, etten ole syönyt.