Marking the object

Need for object marking

The ability to reorder the words of a sentence requires some marking of some members of a sentence. In the English sentence “Anna loves Pete”, the word order is essential; the sentence “Pete loves Anna” would have a different meaning. The Finnish language uses case suffixes to mark the object. For the verb rakastaa (to love), the case is the partitive, and we would say Anna rakastaa Peteä. These words could be put in any order, and the basic meaning would be the same, though the emphasis and tone may vary.

The four cases for an object

The system of marking the object is somewhat complicated. In Latin, the subject is always in the nominative and the object is in the accusative. Finnish lacks a proper accusative, except for a few pronouns, and it uses a total of three other cases for an object: nominative, genitive, and partitive. Further confusion is often caused by grammars that call nominative and genitive collectively “accusative” when used for the object.

The basic rules for the case of an object are:

• The partitive is used when the object is “partial”, in the sense of indicating that the action is or was ongoing or otherwise not completed, e.g. Söin omenaa (I was eating an apple), Söin omenia (I was eating apples).
• The partitive is used with verbs that express feelings and affections, e.g. Pelkään koiria (I am afraid of dogs), and with many verbs that can be described as not producing a specific result, e.g. Seuraa ohjeita (Follow the instructions).
• The partitive is used when the object denotes an unspecified mass of something or some unspecified and indefinite amount of something (“partial object”), e.g. Söin jäätelöä (I ate ice cream) and Näin joutsenia (I saw swans). Compare these with Söin jäätelön (I ate the/an ice cream, i.e. some portion of ice cream) and Näin joutsenet (I saw the swans, i.e. some swans that have been discussed), which have a “total” object.
• As an exception to the above item, a “partial object” is in the nominative (or in the accusative if it has such a form), if the predicate is in a 4th person form or in a 1st or 2nd person imperative form. Examples: omena syötiin (an/the apple was eaten), syö omena (eat an apple), syökäämme omena (let us eat an/the apple).
• The partitive is used in negative sentences, e.g. En syönyt omenaa (I did not eat an/the apple), Etkö syönyt omenaa? (Didn’t you eat an/the apple?).
• The nominative is used in a few contexts such as with imperative forms, e.g. Syö omena! (Eat an/the apple!). This is described later in subsection Object in nominative.
• Otherwise, the object is usually in the genitive when it is singular, in the nominative when it is plural, e.g. Söin omenan (I ate an/the apple), Söin omenat (I ate the apples). However, for the personal pronouns and the interrogative pronoun kuka, the object is in the accusative (if the rules above do not apply), e.g. Tapasin hänet (I met him/her).

For the verb syödä (to eat), the use of cases of the object can be summarized as follows, using the verb form söin (I ate/was eating):

For the pronouns that have an accusative form, that form is used for a total object, e.g. näin hänet (I saw him/her), näin heidät (I saw them).

In a question, the object is usually in genitive singular or nominative plural when it is definite, e.g. contains the demonstrative pronoun tämä. Examples: Oletko lukenut tämän kirjan? (Have you read this book?) and Oletko lukenut nämä kirjat (Have you read these books?). It is possible to use the partitive, too, but then the meaning or at least the tone changes: Oletko lukenut tätä kirjaa? expresses doubt and often expects a negative answer, and Oletko lukenut näitä kirjoja? means “Have you read any of these books?”

The partiality of an object does not exclude the possibility that the action was completed. Rather, it is often a matter of aspect. We can say kirjoitin kirjaa even when the book has actually been written now; it largely corresponds to “I was writing a/the book”, whereas kirjoitin kirjan would normally be translated as “I wrote a/the book”.

Verbs that require a partitive object

There are many verbs that always take an object in the partitive. Many of them can be said to express an activity that cannot be brought to completion (though it can be ended). This includes verbs that describe feelings or attitudes, e.g. vihata (to hate), miellyttää (to please), and sääliä (to have pity for). This is why we say rakastan sinua (I love you). However, sometimes such verbs are exceptionally used to express an idea of an action with a result, e.g. hän rakasti miehen kuoliaaksi (“she loved the man to death”).

Such affection verbs and many other verbs could be described as irresultative, i.e. as not producing a specific result. They could be described as inevitably taking a partial object, and the first rule on the object would cover them. However, there are also many verbs that always take the partitive, but cannot be generally characterized as irresultative, e.g. ajatella (to think), edustaa (to represent), epäillä (to doubt), jatkaa (to continue), kaivata (to long for), kiinnostaa (to make interested), kiittää (to thank), onnitella (to congratulate), moittia (to find fault with), puolustaa (to defend), seurata (to follow), syyttää (to accuse), tarkoittaa (to mean), uskoa (to believe someone), verrata (to compare).

For example, we say Hän puolusti Mattia oikeudessa (He defended Matti at court), even though the defence can be successfully completed. We say Hän vertasi tuloksia (He/she compared the results), even though this may refer to a comparison that produces a specific result in the form of a report.

It is difficult to say what these verbs really have in common and how they differ from other verbs. It might be best to treat this as a lexical issue: some verbs just take the partitive, and this needs to be learned when learning the verb, perhaps looking at its description or usage examples in a dictionary.

Sometimes a verb has different meanings so that some of the meanings require an object in the partitive. The word uskoa is used with the partitive when the object denotes a person, e.g. Uskon Maijaa (I believe Maija), but it follows normal object rules otherwise, e.g. Uskon selityksen (I believe the explanation).

The verb naida means “to marry” in standard language and takes an object in genitive or accusative or (in plural) in the nominative, e.g. Hän nai nuoren tytön (He married a young girl). In spoken language, the verb is also used in vulgar style with an object in the partitive, and then the verb means sexual intercourse, e.g. Hän nai nuorta tyttöä (He fucked a young girl).

Use of accusative forms

When the object is a personal pronoun (minä, sinä, hän, me, te, he) or the interrogative pronoun kuka ∼ ken, the accusative (minut, sinut, hänet, meidät, teidät, heidät, kenet) is used for a total object, e.g. Näin sinut (I saw you) and He voittivat meidät (They beat us).

For a partial object, the partitive is used as for other words, e.g. En nähnyt sinua (I did not see you) and He eivät voittaneet meitä (They did not beat us).

Effect of definiteness

In some contexts, the case of an object depends on its definiteness. If I say Ostan leipää, it means that I will buy some bread, but Ostan leivän means buying “the bread”. This may mean buying some loaf of bread that has been discussed, or it may mean all the bread that will be needed on some occasion. Similarly in plural: Ostan leipiä (I will buy loafs), Ostan leivät (I will buy the loafs).

Special differences in meaning

For some verbs, the meaning depends on the case of the object. For example, the verb ampua (to shoot) means shooting at something or someone when the object is in the partitive, but killing by shooting when the object is in the genitive (in singular) or in the nominative (in plural):

• Hän ampui lintua (He shot at a/the bird)
• Hän ampui linnun (He shot a/the bird, killing it)
• Hän ampui linnut (He shot the birds)

Such distinctions are lost when the partitive must be used due to the grammatical rules described above. For example, Hän ampui lintuja can mean “He shot birds”, but also “He shot at birds”. Similarly, since negation causes the partitive used, Hän ei ampunut lintua can mean “He did not shoot at a/the bird”, but also “He did not shoot a/the bird”.

Object in nominative

An object is in the nominative, if any of the following conditions is met:

• The verb is in an imperative form or in a 4th person form, the object is in singular, and the verb is not one that always requires the partitive. For example, we say Anna omena “Give an/the apple”, whether referring to a definite apple or just any apple. (When referring to something definite, it is common in speech to use clarifying words, such as a demonstrative pronoun, e.g. Anna se omena or Anna tuo omena “Give that apple”.) We also say Omena annettiin kauneimmalle (The apple was given to the most beautiful). However, verbs that require the partitive do so even in the imperative, e.g. Usko minua (Believe me!).
• The verb is in an imperative form or in a 4th person form and the object denotes some definite set. For example, Anna omenat asks for all the apples in some set implied by the context, whereas Anna omenoita asks for an unspecified amount of apples in general. We say Omenat annettiin ilmaiseksi (The apples were given for free), referring to a previously mentioned set of apples, in contrast with Omenoita annettiin ilmaiseksi (Apples were given for free).
• The verb is connected with a modal expression like pitää (must) and the conditions for a total object are met, e.g. Minun pitää lähettää kirje (I must send a/the letter) and Minun pitää lähettää kirjeet (I must send the letters).
• The object contains a numeral and a noun and the conditions for a total object are met, e.g. Söin kolme omenaa (I ate three apples). Here we interpret kolme omenaa as the object, with the numeral kolme as the main word, in the nominative, and omenaa as its attribute, appearing in the partitive. Compare this with the clause Katselin kolmea omenaa (I was watching at three apples), where the object is partial and the main word kolmea is thus in the partitive. The numeral yksi (one) is an exception: when it is used, normal object rules apply, e.g. Söin yhden omenan (I ate one apple), with the object in the genitive.

Problems with the case of object

In very complicated sentences that contain clause equivalents, even native speakers have difficulties in selecting the right form for an object, because it is partly a matter of arbitrary rules of standard language. The topic is so difficult that mistakes in the case of an object are often the only feature that reveals that Finnish is not the native language of a person who speaks otherwise perfect Finnish.

Object vs. adverbial

Finnish often expresses the logical object of an action using an adverbial even when English uses a grammatical object. For example, “You did not answer the question” has an object, “the question”, but the corresponding Finnish expressions has an adverbial, in the illative case: Et vastannut kysymykseen. The verb vastata simply requires the illative when the verb means “to respond”. Such things are described in dictionaries in entries for verbs. Other examples:

• Pidän sinusta (I like you), using the elative.
• Luotan sinuun (I trust you), using the illative.
• Nuoli osui maaliin (The arrow hit the target), using the illative.