Tytti’s Comments (group member since Jan 23, 2014)

Tytti’s comments from the Language & Grammar group.

Doug wrote: "This might be why men and women in many older societies did (do) not assemble together much sometimes to the point of even dining separately."

But that wasn't the case with all societies. Here people of the whole household even bathed together, both men and women, until at least the late 19th century. Not sure how much that has to do with the "equal nature" of the language...

Also studying another language teaches you some things about your own language.

Finnish also uses singular and plural you, though plural you when used as a sign of "respect" is pretty rare. It is still used when addressing the president and like in formal occasions, also in the military I believe, and by some people when addressing unknown older people (but not in a sauna, there we are all naked and equal *) or in the customer service. But in most places people just call each other by their first names anyway.

* Never served in the military like most Finnish men because I am a woman and it's not mandatory for us but I have heard somebody telling how he had, as a conscript, met the colonel (or something) in a sauna, and they had talked like equals. And the next day it was business as usual when they were both in uniform.

Well, maybe they are sometimes useful but really only when talking about a man and a woman. Besides, Finns usually call people "it" anyway while talking casually, so s/he isn't even used, or maybe only when referring to pets and other (cute) animals, or in a bit old-fashioned way of addressing someone. I have found s/he to bring more trouble than they are worth.

I'm not sure if it's actually being used in everyday speech in Sweden, and no, that pronoun is "hen", in Finnish the word is "hän", and in Swedish he is "han", she "hon".

Finnish belongs to Finno-Ugric languages with Estonian and many smaller languages, primarily in Russia. They are Finnic languages, Hungarian is Ugric.

And I don't really see a need for gender specific pronouns, as it rarely matters if one is talking about a man or a woman. In some languages like French there is also "elles" for all female groups but English doesn't have that. For example in this one "he" is used because the singer is female but the song doesn't specify that it's really a man she is thinking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYNDA...

Well some languages don't even have different words for she and he. And I have understood that countries and ships are often referred to as "she".

There is too much chat in the Kitchen Sink, so I can't really follow it. I was hoping to learn the right word here (it's not a grammar question either). But I deleted the question now.

✿Lilac✿ wrote: "Tytti, I made a typo. It happens. I know the difference. "Your" is possessive; "you're" means "you are." Anyway, thanks for your condescending and irrelevant tip. I hope it gave you the ego boost you were seeking."

This is a thread for words I loathe. I loathe when people use 'your' instead of 'you're' and it seems to be very common. And you didn't sound condescending at all.

✿Lilac✿ wrote: ""No problem" is the new "your welcome.""

It's not "your welcome", it's "you're welcome". They mean completely different things. It's not difficult, I learned the difference in 3rd grade (the first I studied English).

FICTION. As in: "It's called historical FICTION."

Melinda wrote: "My favorite example? Swedish "mångata": the road-like reflection of the moon on water."

En måne = a moon, en gata = a street, road...

I have yet to find a good word in English for "eväät". It means something like "a packed lunch" but usually I pack some food for the whole day or for a couple of days or even a week. So that "lunch" part sounds stupid then.

There is also a nice word in Finnish: "lukemattomat kirjani" can mean both my countless and unread books... For some reason that came to mind, it has nothing to do with the fact that I just bought five paperbacks that were on sale, three of them 500-650 pages long...

Newengland wrote: "Fair enough, but remember this and tell every Finn you see: Hollywood is its own Republic, having little to no connection with real Americans and our everyday lives."

Well we do watch news and read newspapers and I particularly like watching documentaries. I am not sure, though, that the picture they paint is that much better...

Newengland wrote: "Oh, no question. It can be done poorly. Kind of like the way Hollywood depicts the USA, making the world think that American movies accurately depict Americans."

I think even worse is the way that American movies depict "foreigners". People who can speak English, speak it usually with a strong accent and they are often little simple and ignorant. Those who can't are made to look stupid. Germans and/or Soviets are always evil, depending the time, while Americans are always heroic which is annoying.

Sure, Finns can make fun of themselves (and sometimes of Swedes but that's good-natured and we do know each other) and I don't really care how Americans depict themselves. But I hate the way many American movies treat non-Americans, without any respect and usually with a condescending attitude. So no, I don't watch too many Hollywood movies these days.

Newengland wrote: "As for the argument that you have to live or visit somewhere in order to write convincingly about it, I see some merit, but then I wonder about entire genres like science fiction and fantasy."

But in those genres the world exists only in the author's head. No one can tell whether some details are correct or not. Whereas I feel that some writers think that Finland (and other similar countries) are good places to place a book because their readers won't know them anyway and won't care either. And they will never be published here so they won't even get bad reviews. The books tell more about the writer then (and the audience) than the country in question. And then people believe in that!

Newengland wrote: "Now that I'm more than halfway through Constellation of Vital Phenomena, I can't help but reflect on why I'm enjoying it so much compared to other books set in the west, in the suburbs, in places r..."

I am always wary of books written by foreigners who might never have visited the country or at least lived there. I have read some weird reviews about books set in Finland. People have "learned" stuff when I know the book is not one bit "authentic". One couldn't get the sides of the Civil War correct (it's not that difficult), the other was just unbelievable in its setting.

Yes I know that Finland (and Lapland) is exotic and the Winter War was interesting but still... It wouldn't hurt to do some research and maybe ask a Finn to read the book first.

Jane wrote: "I agree with you on use of 'love' as a verb about a thing. 'Love' should really be used only about a person. I've probably been guilty of using it about a historical period which is so close to us people who were alive then."

I probably have used it myself when talking about Gone with the Wind (though in English only) but for me that's not really a war book, it's a book about Scarlett, and I "loved" her character (and I read it when I was 11), the setting didn't matter that much. (But I wouldn't have "loved" Uncle Tom's Cabin I read the next year.)

But using it about books like The Book Thief or Between Shades of Gray just puts me off. It usually tells me that the reviewer is a teenager and I probably shouldn't trust her (yes, usually her) judgement. I don't need tearjerkers to make me cry, just cold non-fiction is enough to do that.

Of course I personally haven't had to suffer, neither did my relatives, much. The only reason for that is that our army managed to stop twice the Soviet onslaught. But I have always known what happened behind the border in Karelia, Ingria and Estonia, for example, they were "my people". That's why I am also very surprised that Stalin's terror isn't taught in schools in USA, eventhough it started earlier, lasted longer and probably killed more people than Hitler's.

I am quilty of using target as a verb. My excuse is that as a non-native speaker I must have learned it from English speakers. But at least among those words I can't find a better word for the use I usually... use it.

Alison wrote: "
1. I am allergic to rabbits.
2. I have 20 uncles and aunties.
3. I speak 3 languages."

I think the second one. Or of course you can speak four languages.

This might be controversial but... "love".

As in "I love WWII!!", "I LOVED [the book about real events in the 20th century where lots of people were killed]". I never see that in Finnish, only in English reviews etc.

I am very interested in WWII but my grandfather had to leave his home village (where my ancestors had lived at least from the 17th century) to the Soviets, my father saw the Soviet bombers as a child and I knew several men who had fought in it. Some spent 5 years of their youth in war. I certainly don't understand how anyone can say they loved a book depicting any of that.

Loving fiction about older wars I can understand a bit better, people who fought in them and their children and grandchildren have probably died already.

"It's just my opinion" or something like that after end of some rant or anything really. Yeah, these are all our opinions, what's the point of everyone pointing that out?

Also "I am entitled to my opinion" said during a debate and then leaving. Usually without stating any reasons for that opinion and after the opponent have stated many against it.

Anthony D wrote: "I've often thought that becoming aware of grammatical rules comes through learning foreign languages, rather than being taught English."

I have wondered that. But I started learning English about 1.5 years later I learned how to read and write, so it's difficult to say. Finnish is also so different that I don't think it would help much.

But I don't English is that difficult, at least the normal, everyday language. Of course sometimes I can tell something is wrong with the spelling but don't know what. The word just looks wrong.