Talk:pittää

#3 "to shall"

@KirillW Now that I revisit this it still doesn't line up: The normal construction for "must" would be "pittää lagerille olla", while for "should" it would be "pitä[i]s lageri olemaa", so both don't fit. Perhaps it's two definitions: "to must" (должен) and "to need" (нужен), with the first one taking the nominative and the second one the allative for the experiencer? Thadh (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Can't comment on the actual issue here. Just noting that the word "to" isn't really used before the English auxiliary verbs "shall", "should", or "must". I would recommend avoiding constructions like "to shall" in definitions, since it sounds grammatically wrong; just use "shall". For comparison, French devoir has "must, to have to, should". 142.166.21.76 06:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh, yes, I think you're right: the usage of pittää is apparently heavily affected by Russian. When it's used for "нужно", then it's used with allative ("мне нужно" > "miulle pittää") or with genetive (like in Finnish "minun pitää" — I believe I've seen examples in the textbook, but that's not mainstream and needs to be checked). Could be that when it's used for "должен", then nominative ("я должен" > "miä pittää") is possible, but I haven't noticed that before and can't find more examples for this. I'll discuss this on Saturday. KirillW (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh, for "miul(le) pittää" and "miun pittää" I confirm: both are possible, while the first one one being overwhelmingly dominant.

"Pitäs" is apparently a typo, should be "pitäis".

I can't find any other examples of pittää with 3rd infinitive and Mehmet said he never heard that, so it could be a mistake.

As for nominative, I believe it's the same as in Finnish: https://uusikielemme.fi/finnish-grammar/syntax/sentence-types/taytyy-sentence-types-syntax-of-necessity-sentences#four. The last example ("Tässä täytyy olla jokin virhe.") is very similar to our case.

KirillW (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh, one more update on the subject from me. I've asked Rožanskij, if he had encountered the usage of "pittää" with -ma infinitive. He told me that heard that multiple times, but that was always a mistake, and informants usually corrected themselves. Also he pointed out that the -ma infinitive is used with "pidama" in Estonian, hence it apparently comes from there. I still doubt this should be considered a language norm...

KirillW (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We can mark it as proscribed ;) Thadh (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)