1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Maassa on paljon lunta."

"Maassa on paljon lunta."

Translation:There is a lot of snow on the ground.

July 1, 2020

15 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/PatriciaCr301469

There is lots of snow on the ground should also be accepted, but it's not.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Dylan600886

Lumi —> lunta. Wow. I've decided that sorting out Finnish partitive transformations is every bit as baffling as Arabic or English plural transformations.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/JtZhU

There is lots of snow on the ground.....what is wrong with that?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Kalea7654

What's the difference between paljon and monta?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Christina619630

To be gramatically correct it should be there are lots or there is a lot


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/prinsessa1212

"There are lots of snow" doesn't make sense because snow is uncountable, however I agree that "There is a lot of snow" should be accepted.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/nimporte-qui

"Lots" functions the same as "heaps" or "tonnes" so there's no problem with "lots of snow". However, the uncountability of snow forces the verb to be 'is'.

"There's lots of snow on the ground" is perfectly acceptable.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Z-Q-Y

"there is much snow on the ground" should also be accepted


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Sarah803697

Hmm. Doesn't seem quite right to me. If that's correct English, it sounds quite formal / archaic. E.g. the Shakespeare play "Much Ado About Nothing" would nowadays more likely be "A Lot of Fuss About Nothing." "Much" in this type of context is, oddly, still used with "not": "There's not much snow on the ground" but conversely "There's a lot of snow on the ground".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/BengtLinde

Wouldn't "much" be an adequate translation of "paljon"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Sarah803697

See my comment above. Also, on 2nd reflection, in English we DO use 'much' in situations where it isn't prefaced by 'not' ... but it seems to me only for non physical things, e.g. "There was much excitement / consternation / disquiet" but when it comes to things you can actually touch ... no. Unless anyone can think of anything? You wouldn't say, for example, "There were much flowers / pencils / dogs".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Z-Q-Y

It's definitely correct English, even if it sounds 'old fashioned'. You can't say 'much flowers' because it's grammatically incorrect, it should be 'many flowers' because flowers is a countable noun (and plural!)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Sarah803697

Hi, the question from BengtLinde was whether "much" (not "many") would be a translation of "paljon" - and I based my reply on that.

As regards your earlier comment and my answer to that ... I stand by my assertion that "There is much snow on the ground" sounds very old fashioned and stilted. I'll add that it also sounds like a non-native English speaker getting things slightly wrong.

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