generally i do like how finnish makes use of grammatical cases (learning about locative cases as a native english speaker blew my mind tbh, why dont we have that?!?!?!) and its been fairly easy learning how to apply them, but for some reason i just still cant wrap my head around partitive case (i.e. when and when not to use it)
Hi!
Partitive is a difficult one for sure. There are a few places where it kind of makes sense to use it at all times:
When the noun is part of an action where (currently) there is/cannot be a result. For example: I am watering the flowers = "Kastelen kukkia" VS I water the flowers = "Kastelen kukat", the focus shifts. "Tanssin tanssia" (I dance a dance (I am currently doing it, might not finish it)) VS "Tanssin tanssin" (I dance this dance (a set dance which I will surely finish))
When there is a word expressing quantity: (works a bit like English, you wouldn't say "many the flowers" (paljon kukat), you would say "many flowers" (paljon kukkia), as in you aren't specifying the flowers and in general there are many of them) (Keep in mind that if you are asking for a price with "Paljonko ... on/ovat?", you do not use the partitive. "Paljonko (nämä) kukat ovat?" = How much are (these) flowers?
In existential sentences, for example "there are flowers in the garden" (puutarhassa on kukkia), where it's a general statement that there exist some quantity of flowers in the garden VS "the flowers are in the garden" (kukat ovat puutarhassa) where the flowers are known and there is a known quantity of them. Similarly, when you are asking if something is somewhere, you can use the partitive: "Onko puutarhassa kukkia?" (Are there flowers in the garden?) and "Ovatko kukat puutarhassa?" (Are THE flowers in the garden?"
When something is fully something or the whole thing/area is something: "Kukat ovat punaisia" (The flowers are red) VS "Kukat ovat punaiset" (These specific flowers that I am referencing are red). If you want to put "Kukat" into partitive, you must turn the sentence existential; "Punaisia kukkia on olemassa" (Red flowers (in general) exist) "Tässä on punaisia kukkia" (Here are some red flowers)
As a predicative: "Olemme kukkia (We are flowers) VS "Olemme kukat" (We are THE flowers (which you are referencing right now))
Then there are some things that you just have to remember:
When referencing a way in which something is done: "hiljaa" (quietly)
When referencing a relation between entities: "Kosketin kukan lehteä" (I touched the leaf of the flower), "Otin kukkaa kädestä" (I grabbed the hand of the flower) (Compare this to the first entry on this list)
After a preposition: "Keskellä kukkaa" (In the middle of the flower) "Keskellä kukkia" (In the middle of the flowers). You could also use the genitive and say "Kukan keskellä" and "Kukkien keskellä", but you would need to flip the word order accordingly.
In some sayings and other irregular stuff (of course)
The Finnish Wikipedia article also mentions that "the place expressions kaukaa, kauempaa, ulkoa, kotoa, vastapäätä are sometimes read as partitive, but from a linguistic-historical point of view they are a remnant of the Uralic proto-language separative." which of course caught my eye.
Another thing you should know with kukka:
"Onko sinulla kukkia?" - do you have flowers?
"Onko sinulla kukka?" - do you have a flower?
"Onko kukka sinulla?" - do you possess the flower (which I am referencing)
BUT:
"Onko sinulla kukkaa?" - do you have a flower (at all)? OR "do you have [green product which I think I shouldn't mention here] ?"
If someone asks you the latter out on the street, you can now answer accordingly to your possession of said green substance!
