Editing Partitive (section)

==Partitive case: Finnish morphology==

[[Finnish language|Finnish]] indicates the partitive by inflecting nouns in the [[partitive case]].  An [[Object (grammar)|object]] takes the partitive case under the following three conditions:

The [[Aspect (linguistics)|aspectual]] condition is if the object is governed by an [[Boundedness (linguistics)|unbounded]] (or [[Telicity|atelic]]) verb, that is, one which does not indicate the result of an action.  The NP-related (quantity) condition is if the object is quantitatively indeterminate, which means indefinite bare plurals or [[mass noun]]s. Lastly, the negative condition applies when a [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]] is negated, in which case nearly all objects are marked with the partitive.<ref name="huumo">Huumo, T. (2013). On the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the finnish partitive object. Folia Linguistica, 47(1), 89-112. {{doi|10.1515/flin.2013.005}}</ref>

These three conditions are generally considered to be hierarchically ranked according to their strength such that negation > aspect > quantity.  [[Negation]] is strongest in that it applies so pervasively to negated events, regardless of aspect or quantity.<ref name="huumo" />

An example of the NP-related condition is shown below, borrowed from Huumo:

{{interlinear|number=(a)
|Löys-i-n voi-ta.
|find-PST-1SG butter-PTV
|"I found some butter."}}

{{interlinear|number=(b)
|Löys-i-n voi-n.
|find-PST-1SG butter-TOT
|"I found the butter."}}

In (a), the object is a mass noun, where the partitive case indicates an open, unspecified quantity of butter using the suffix ''-ta'', as opposed to a closed quantity or total object, which Finnish would specify by using the [[Accusative case|accusative]] suffix –n, as in (b).

These two examples above show the contrast that exists in Finnish between the partitive object and total object, the former indicating incompleteness of an event or an open quantity.  Whereas the partitive object takes the partitive case, the total object can be marked with [[Nominative case|nominative]], [[Genitive case|genitive]], or [[Accusative case|accusative]] and indicates aspectual completeness or closed quantity.<ref name="huumo" />

{{interlinear|number=(c)
| Pitel-i-n käde-ssä-ni kirja-a ~ voi-ta.
| hold-PST-1SG hand-INE-1SG. book-PTV ~ butter-PTV
| "I was holding [a/the] book ~ [the/some] butter in my hand."}}

{{interlinear|number=(d)
| Ammu-i-n karhu'''-a''' 
| shoot-PST-1SG bear'''-PTV''' 
| "I shot at the/a bear." /"I shot the bear [but didn't kill it]."<br>
(Whether the bullet actually hit the bear is unknown, but if it hit the bear, it didn't kill it.)}}

{{interlinear|number=(e)
| Ammu-i-n karhu'''-n''' 
| shoot-PST-1SG bear'''-ACC'''
| "I shot the/a bear dead"<br>
(The result of the action is that the bullet hit the bear and killed it.)}}

In the case of (c), the partitive object is triggered by the unbounded aspect of the verb, not the quantity of the object, since the openness of the quantity is irrelevant.  Unboundedness in verbs denotes whether there is a direct consequence following the action of the verb.  The verb's aspect is [[Continuous and progressive aspects|progressive]], involving an ongoing action without a specified endpoint, and is therefore unbounded.  This aspectual unboundedness requires the partitive object, and has the effect of concealing the quantity of the object.  This shows that aspect is stronger than quantity in conditioning the partitive.<ref name="huumo" />

In (d) and (e), "to shoot" in Finnish is an intrinsically neither bound nor unbound verb since the shooting can cause the three different results of the target being killed or only wounded or not being hit. (In English, "to shoot" with a direct object has the first two senses and requires additions such as "dead" or "and killed" to not be ambivalent, and the third sense is only possible by adding the preposition "at".) "To kill" would be an intrinsically bound verb, where the consequence is someone/something being dead. In the data, the morpheme "–a" is the partitive morpheme. In (d), the verb "shot" takes a partitive [[Object (grammar)|object]] and specifies the activities of "shooting without killing" or "shooting at but not necessarily hitting". In (e), the verb takes an [[accusative]] object and denotes accomplishment of hitting and killing.  Hence, the difference of unboundness or boundness in the verb, whether the bear was hit (and killed) by the bullet or not, is reflected by the difference in the morphology of the object.

The common factor between aspectual and NP-related functions of the partitive case is the process of marking a verb phrase's (VP) unboundness.  A VP has the semantic property of having either an unbounded head or unbounded argument.  For example, in Finnish the partitive case suffix denotes an unbound event, while the accusative case [[suffix]] denotes a bounded event.  Note that when translating Finnish into English, the determiners could surface as "a", "the", "some" or numerals in both unbound and bound events.<ref>[Kiparsky, P. (1998). Partitive case and aspect. The projection of arguments: [[Lexical semantics|Lexical]] and compositional factors, 265, 307.]</ref>