1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Ne istuvat maassa ja murisev…

"Ne istuvat maassa ja murisevat."

Translation:They are sitting on the ground and growling.

July 4, 2020



Should'nt it be "and are growling" here? With the words offered I tried " they are sitting and growling on the ground" but that wasn't accepted. So I am really missing a second "are"...


In English, you do not need a second "are". It is implied unless you say, "They are sitting on the ground and they are growling."


[They are sitting on the ground] and [they are growling].
They [are sitting on the ground] and [are growling].
They are [sitting on the ground] and [growling].

All are theoretically possible; it just depends how much of the sentence you interpret the "and" to be linking.

The first one is unnecessarily long. I, personally, find the second one with the repeated "are" a bit unnatural and would say the third one myself, but all should be accepted translations here. You could argue that my first sentence shouldn't be accepted since the ne is not repeated in the Finnish example, but that would be incredibly pedantic.


English translation does sound very odd, as many others, I am missing the second "are"- are growling.


same here. at least the translations ...are growling... and ...growl...should be accepted as correct


It sounds perfectly natural to me. See my long comment in reply to JANBOEVINK.


I would have preferred to leave out the -and-, but thought DL might reject that.


If you leave out the "and", then you're using "growling" as an adverbial phrase subordinate to sitting. The semantic meaning is the same but the pragmatics (topic, focus, emphasis etc.) are not. I think in Finnish that would look like this:

Ne istuvat maassa murisemalla. = They sit/are sitting on the ground, growling.

I'd love for a native or fluent speaker of Finnish to let me know if that's right.


Hi Mr Great, you have great comments!. As phil below also says, the sentence with -and growling- is not good English. Of itself there is no issue whether or not the Finnish could be different, one has to translate to an acceptable English. (There are many quibbles about that in these exercises). It is quite possible that one sentence in one language translates into several possible sentences in another with very much the same meaning as long as those sentences represent an accepted use of the different languages.


Thank you, but, respectfully, you're wrong.

The sentence with "and growling" is perfectly acceptable English. I'm a native speaker of English and the sentence with "and growling" is the most natural phrasing. I can break down the grammar for you to show you how it works too.

"And" can link two entire clauses:

{[They are sitting on the ground] and [they are growling]}.

It can also link two verb phrases with the same subject, meaning that the subject doesn't have to be repeated:

They {[are sitting on the ground] and [are growling]}.

It can also link two equivalent elements inside an individual phrase, in this case two present participles within a verb phrase. Their parallel structure means that the auxiliary verb does not need to be repeated:

They are {[sitting on the ground] and [growling]}.

All are grammatically possible, but as a native speaker, I personally find (C) the most natural by far. (B) seems somehow unnatural to me and (A) is unnecessarily long and I'd only use it to really spell out the situation if it is unclear to the listener. Of course the choice of which version of this sentence is the most natural may vary by dialect and personal choice, style and other considerations.

As another example, here's another sentence showing the possible ways "and" can link more or less specific elements together.

{[They live in the forests] and [they live in the adjacent grasslands]}. (two clauses linked - unnecessary because the subjects are the same)

They {[live in the forests] and [live in the adjacent grasslands]}. (two verb phrases linked - unnecessary because the verbs are the same)

They live {[in the forests] and [in the adjacent grasslands]}. (two prepositional phrases linked - unnecessary because the preposition is the same)

They live in {[the forests] and [the adjacent grasslands]}. (two determiner phases within a prepositional phrase linked - repetition of determiner (the article "the") unnecessary because it is identical in both cases)

They live in the {[forests] and [adjacent grasslands]}. (two noun phrases linked within a determiner phrase - no further reduction is possible)

I find the last two versions of that sentence the most natural. You can include redundant repetition for extra emphasis. Language without any redundancy can be difficult to understand and rely on hearing every last word, so we tend to use more redundant elements when the listener appears not to understand.

These possibilities for reducing sentences with and are sensitive to the meaning of the words, by the way. That's why it's perfectly possible to say ...

I have {[been there] and [done that]}.

... but not ...

* I have {[been there] and {[a big dog]}

Even though I have been there and I have a big dog both begin with "I have", the role of have is different in both of these clauses, first being an auxiliary verb introducing the present perfect and then a main verb with the meaning of "possess".

There is no such restriction on "They are {[sitting on the ground] and [growling]}," because in both cases, "they" refers to the same referents and "are" is an auxiliary introducing the present continuous.


Almost correct. It would be Ne istuvat maassa murisemassa.


They are sitting on the ground and growling. Doesn't sound like very good English to me. May I suggest "...and growl"


The verbs should be in the same tense. 'They are sitting and they are growling.' You can just omit the second 'are' in english. 'They are sitting and they growl.' that is wrong because they are sitting right now, and growling right now, same group, same moment. Needs the same tense.


Hi Marrik. One can very well be sitting on the ground for a while and growl just once or twice. I find this rule that the verbs have to be in the same tense unduly restrictive, but perhaps it is one of the few grammatical rules of English.


Yeah, is it wrong English to say they are sitting on the ground and growl? I think of they are sitting on the ground and [they] growl.

Reported it anyway.

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