"The kitten bites grandma."
Translation:Pentu puraisee mummoa.
Nope. You can't say that puppy would be THE correct translation. It is ONE of them, just like kitten and wolf puppy and lion cub and several other possibilities, that should all be accepted from Finnish to English if the species is not specified. Also, please don't call kittens cat puppies, that's just... wrong.
I just meant to point out, that "pentu" doesn't directly translate to only "kitten". Of course it is one possibility, but as I've been studying other languages I've often been wondering in similar situations like "ok, how would I call a dog puppy then, if "kitten" is "pentu". "Pentu" is not reserved to only cats. Sorry about the cat puppies. Can you tell me how to call them?
Sorry I maybe got the wrong idea from your earlier message. It sounded like you meant that the puppy would be the most correct translation, when there are actually several that are equally as correct as the species of the animal is not specified by the Finnish word pentu.
And kittens: just call them kittens! With puppies, you probably think of dog puppies unless it's specified otherwise (e.g wolf puppies), and just like that, kittens are cat's children. I think these words for animal offspring are just one of those things that don't always match exactly. Like in Finnish we have "pentu" for some species, "poikanen" for some other (birds, but can also often be used instead of pentu), and then there are those specified for a certain animal, like "varsa" for horses (and related). In English they have their own words, like kittens and puppies and cubs, for different animals.
Yes, thanks for understanding. I just got the same sentence the other way around: Translate "pentu puraisee mummoa". Then I wrote "the puppy bites grandma" and it was marked wrong, because the correct answer according to DL was "the kitten bites grandma". That kind of confusion should be avoided right from the start. And I'm native finnish speaker so I'm very aware of all the nuances of poikaset etc. :) I kind of meant to say "cat babies", but ended up saying "cat puppies" - tried to maintain some kind of logic. Anyway - great to have a finnish course here. It is interesting to check it out.
I think the appropriate translation means that sentence should be translatable back to english and the result should be the initial sentence. But nobody would translate “Pentu puraisee mummoa” as “Kitten bites grandma”. Every normal person would translate it as “The/A puppy bites grandma”. That just shows that this translation is not good for teaching purposes.
I have to disagree with you. Lots of these Duolingo sentences have many different but equally possible translations, and this is one of them. Some would need more context to make sense and/or have just one absolute translation (if that is ever possible), and this is one of them. Since the Finnish word pentu is used in context with several different species, there are many possible translations for this into English. Every normal person would translate it to kitten, if you have a kitten biting grandma just then (they can do that just as well, you know). You wouldn't call it a puppy. Or if grandma is a zookeeper and is bitten by a bear cub, you'd translate it to cub, not puppy. Pentu is a word that does not specify species by itself, unlike the English equivalents, though you could elaborate by saying for example "kissanpentu" (kitten) or "koiranpentu" (puppy).
No no. I do not find partitive strange. It's just that I'm not familiar (at all) with all the Finnish cases (including the partitive case). If this sentence were to be translated from Finnish to French (my native language), the word "mummo" would be governed by the "accusative" (as a "complément d'objet direct"). Does the partitive case has paramountcy (over accusative)?
Ok. The partitive is not connected with the cat right now being in the process of biting grandma. (you'd say pentu puree mummoa nyt) It is true, that the kitten is biting only parts of grandma and not the whole woman. But l'd say that "mummoa" is used, because mummo is the target (object?) of the activity. Like "Minä syön ruokaA" (I am eating food), "Minä luen kirjaA" (I'm reading a book) and so on. There is no difference if you are reading right now, or have a book at home, that you read every evening. (someone calls you and asks what you are doing right now - "luen kirjaa", or someone asks you 'what will you do when you get home tonight' - "luen kirjaa".) Again I hope those who are more fluent with grammatic terms come to your aid. :)
I might have found an answer to my question here: https://uusikielemme.fi/finnish-grammar/grammatical-cases/partitive-verbs-partitiiviverbit-list/ According to the Website "Uusi kielemme", if I understand correctly, "puraista" might be a "partitive verb" (although "puraista" is not listed as being one). The author says: "Partitive verbs are a group of verbs that always (or almost always) require their object to be inflected in the partitive case. Partitive verbs themselves won’t inflect in the partitive. Rather, the word connected to the partitive verb should be partitive."