1. Forum
2. >
3. Topic: Finnish
4. >
5. "We have one kilogram of meat…

# "We have one kilogram of meat."

## Translation:Meillä on yksi kilo lihaa.

July 2, 2020

[deactivated user]

In Finnish one kilo is usually just referred to as kilo there is no need to use one

Same in English: we can just say “a kilo”. There is no need to say “one”; it’s just for emphasis of the number. I’m assuming it’s exactly the same in Finnish.

Meillä on yksi kilo lihaa. = We have one kilo of meat.
Meillä on kilo lihaa. = We have a kilo of meat.

thats what i got wrong and i was wondering since we use just kilo as well in estonian, thank you for clearing that :)

Why the partitive case? We have a specific quantity of meat, don't we? I still don't get the partitive case and how to use it properly...

Finnish teachers are fond of the expression "partitiivi aina voittaa", meaning partitive always wins. I was taught that if there's an arguable rationale for partitive, use it. As a B.1 level student, my answer would be that one kilo is the countable amount of a uncountable amount, ie, meat.

I see your point, thank you :)

• 1977

See this resource about the partitive case. According to it, partitive is needed after words that express quantity. Sorry I can't explain it more clearly. Anyway, they say that partitive is somewhat hard to get right so no wonder you are puzzled by it.

Kiitos paljon!

Sorry, I can't seem to access this partitive link. So when "we have one kilogram of meat" translated to "...kilo lihaA" would i be correct understanding it remains "kilo" (because rather than declining to something like kiloA, despite being an object of "meilla on yski..." by both mass concepts/"partitive always wins" rule of thumb, while the "lihaA" declines as its proper partitive object?

• 1977

I think there are two different things here: kilo and liha, which are subject to different rules. Liha needs partitive because it's uncountable, kilo would need it if there was any other numeral than yksi. Let me explain:

All number words except yksi (1) need partitive. As an example with a countable thing:

• Meillä on nolla autoa, "we have zero cars"
• Meillä on yksi auto, "we have one car"
• Meillä on kaksi autoa, "we have two cars"
• Meillä on kolme autoa, "we have three cars"

(and so on)

With uncountable you need to use some quantifier, as in English, so it usually needs partitive. Imagine e.g. answering the question "how much meat do we have?":

• Meillä on yksi kilo, "we have one kilogram"
• Meillä on kaksi kiloa, "we have two kilograms"
• (and the same with kolme/neljä/viisi/... kiloa)

Then, combining those two rules we end up with

• Yksi kilo lihaa (again: kilo: no partitive because "1", lihaa because kilo works as a quantifier)
• Kaksi kiloa lihaa (here kilo needs partitive too because the number is other than 1)
• Kolme/neljä/viisi/... kiloa lihaa, etc.

I hope I understood your question correctly, and hope this helps!

Absolutely lk_, you've hit the nail on the head with the situation of the dual partitive, and then some, giving better articulation to my question than I'd originally framed myself. Thanks and regards

Meillä on kilo lihaa on yhtä oikein kuin etä meillä on yksi kilo lihaa!!!

Should (can) the short form of numbers be accepted (yks, kaks, kolm, jne) or are those too colloqiual?

• 1977

No, they are fine only in colloquial situations. You can't mix them with formal speak, to a native that would sound silly.

Kiitos!

kiloGRAM

• 1977

In Finnish, kilogram is so frequently shortened to kilo that I would say it's a synonym. In a very formal context the sentence would be Meillä on yksi kilogramma lihaa.

Same in German! We say in formal context 'Kilogramm' but mostly is is 'Kilo' or short as 'Kg'.

1 Comment