1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Ne yrittävät sanoa mur."

"Ne yrittävät sanoa mur."

Translation:They are trying to say growl.

June 28, 2020



This doesn't make sense in English or at least it's rather confusing. "They are trying to growl" or "They are trying to say grrr" might be better.


I think "trying to say grr" is the best English approximation.


Growl is a verb, so you do not "say it" but "do it". As above podts have mentioned, the correct English translation is "grr"


That's a very literal translation... 'They are trying to growl' is natural and better translation.


But wouldn't that be "Ne yrittävät murista"? I think the problem is with the English - which should be "They are trying to say 'grr'."


This seems incorrect to me. If they're not talking about the verb growling but the sound it makes, shouldn't it be (They are trying to say the word "growl") or something like that?


Does it mean they're trying to say the word "mur" or they're trying to growl?


To growl as a verb is "murista", and the onomatopoeia for the sound from growling is "mur" (although personally I'd write it as "murr" or even "murrrrr"). So I guess they are trying to produce the sound of growling? Said like this the sentence has a bit of a cutesy vibe to me, I'm thinking of little Simba trying to scare little insects with his scawwy lion cub's roar.


Being half Finnish I feel okay to criticize my race a little bit. Where did we come up with "mur" as an onomatopoeia? Animals that growl don't use their lips to articulate an 'm.' The English onomatopoeia "grr" really is more realistic, as the 'g' is the best we can get to mimic that guttural fricative.


I see your "mur" and I raise you "meow" ;-) ... cats can't form an 'm', either.


Oh sarah, so pussilanemous!


I thought this was an odd sentence but then I remembered that I went to school with a girl who could not say "r". She wore a wed dwess. If she tried to say "growl", she would say "gwowl."


Definitely not correctly translate into english


This is a semi-serious question: do animals actually "say" their sounds in Finnish? In my poor little Anglophone mindset, animals do not say anything; they merely make their sounds. To me, "saying" something implies conscious thought - you say words, not sounds. So this whole expression seems off to me. But if that is common usage in Finnish, I better learn to adapt if I'm gonna learn this language.

So to restate the question: when an animal makes a sound, is it common to express that in Finnish as "saying" the sound? Perhaps "sanoa" in Finnish and "say" in English do not mean exactly the same thing. Does "sanoa" lack the implication of conscious thought that "say" has?


I think there's one usage for animals saying stuff in English too: when talking with children. You can ask something like "what does the cow say?", and the child will hopefully answer "cow says moo". To me (as a native Finn), it sounds a bit similar in Finnish. Simply put, animals saying something sounds a bit childish.

For the most common animals (or those that live closest to humans), there are dedicated verbs you could use. One can say (slightly childishly) "kissa sanoo mau" (cat says meow), or say "kissa maukuu" (cat meows). For dogs, the verb is "haukkua" (to bark, "hau"=woof). For cows, "ammua" (to moo, "(am)muu"=moo). And so on. I hope this helps!


It does, thanks.

I thought about that, but sentences like "The cow says moo" in English sound to me like baby talk, like I wouldn't actually say that to anybody older than about six years of age. (Actually, I personally probably wouldn't say that to anybody, even young children.)

From what you're saying, it seems like it's essentially the same situation in Finnish. If so, perhaps Duolingo should not teach us baby talk?


By the way, reading through this again, I think I noticed something I hadn't noticed before. When you use words like "maukuu" (3rd person singular) or "haukkua" (1st infinitive?), those words look a lot like <sound> + "kuu" (or some variation thereof). I interpret "kuu" as having something to do with sound.

So do these words essentially mean "[making the] <sound> sound"? (mau, hau, etc.) Would I combine other sounds with "kuu" to refer to some other animal's sound (i.e. "huukkua", "kutkkua", etc.)? Am I even close?


All of the above. I went for they are trying to say a growl and that was wrong in a language without articles. This is a pretty useless phrase and the English translation is close to gibberish.


FWIW, I heard "me" and so that's what I wrote and it was marked correct but it is wrong. The correct word was "ne" for plural they/it.


I have trouble understanding the computer's voice, so I figured I was hearing murre wrong. Which almost makes sense, if one conflates "say" and "speak" together into sanoa, and takes on faith that murre would not need a definite article --"They are trying to speak the dialect".

But no. I was just mis-hearing mur.


"He yrittävät puhua murretta."


Murretta is partitive? I don't recognize the suffix.


Murretta is indeed the partitive singular form. The original partitive ending was -ta, which in most words has been shortened to -a.

The e ending on murre was originally eh or ek. The final consonant isn't written now, but it's sometimes still pronounced as a glottal stop.

And immediately before a consonant, that glottal stop causes that following consonant to be doubled.


Its annoying that they dont take for valid the correct answer.

Learn Finnish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.