(_a_) If the subject is in the sing., and denotes a living being,
the complement must be in the nominative; one must say =ihminen on
kuolevainen=, not =kuolevaista=.
(_b_) If the subject denotes a part of the body, the complement must
be also in the nominative: =Hiukset ovat mustat=, _the hair is black_.
=Kädet ovat tarpeelliset=, _hands are necessary_.
III. The complement is put in the essive if it denotes the state in which
a thing is at a given time. Thus, =isäni on kipeänä=, _my father is (now)
ill_; =isäni on kipeä=, _my father is an invalid_. =Hän on pappi=, _he
is a clergyman_; but =hän on jo kauan ollut pappina=, _he has long been
a clergyman_. =Suomenmaa on osa Venäjän valtakuntaa=, _Finland is a part
of the Russian empire_; but =tähän vuosisataan asti Suomenmaa oli osana
Ruotsin valtakunnasta=, _till the beginning of this century Finland
formed part of the kingdom of Sweden_. Often there is little difference
between the nominative and essive. Thus one can say either =sydän on
suruja täysi=, or =täynnä=, _the heart is full of woe_; but =täynnä=
gives a more precise and literal idea of fullness than =täysi=.
IV. With the other auxiliaries, signifying to become, or pass into a
state (=tulla=, =ruveta=, =muuttua=, etc.), the complement is put in
the translative. =Ilma muuttuu lämpimäksi=, _the weather grows warm_.
=Poika rupesi palvelijaksi=, _the boy began to be a servant_. =Ukko käy
heikoksi=, _the old man gets weak_. =Hän joutui työmieheksi=, _he became
a workman_.
Such sentences as _it is impossible to go_, or _it is necessary for
you to go_, may be rendered in Finnish as =mahdotonta on mennä=, or
=tarpeellista on että menette=; but in both cases the real subject is
the infinitive, or the sentence with =että= which replaces it.
In such sentences the adjective, combined with the verb =olla=, can
be put either in the partitive or in the nominative; but it is very
hard, not only to give rules for the employment of the two cases, but
even to state the exact difference of meaning between them. As has
been seen above, =kivi on kova= means _the stone is hard_, but =kivi
on kovaa=, _the stone belongs to the class of hard things_. The same
distinction appears to prevail in the case under consideration, but, as
the difference is very subtle, it is not surprising that it is often
hard to trace. On the whole, the partitive is more usual, because the
use of the nominative implies, strictly speaking, that the subject and
the complement are co-extensive. But the nominative is more definite,
inasmuch as it vaguely implies the existence of particular personal or
temporal conditions. Thus, =parasta on mennä= is the equivalent of _it is
best to go_; and it is perfectly logical to use the partitive, as clearly
it is not meant that the terms _going_ and _best_ are co-extensive.
But =paras on mennä= means rather _the best thing for us under the
circumstances is to go_; and in this case the use of the nominative is
also logical, because the two terms are co-extensive. It can be easily
imagined that with so slight a distinction the nominative and partitive
are used almost indifferently in most cases. Thus, it is equally correct
to say =on surkea nähdä sinua tuossa tilassa=, or =on surkeata=, _it is
sad to see you in this position_. But it is noticeable that—
(1) =Parempi= and =hyvä= are always used in the nominative. =Parempi on
odottaa=, _it is better to wait_. =Hyvä on olla terveenä=, _it is good
to be healthy_. In the case of =parempi=, at any rate, this is quite
natural, as there can hardly be said to be a class of better things
without reference to particular circumstances. But this point cannot be
pressed, as other comparatives are used in the partitive.
(2) In such phrases as =on mahdotonta=, _it is impossible_; =onko
luvallistra=, _is it allowable_; =onko mahdollista=, _is it possible?_
the partitive is nearly always used.
_The Object._
The object, like the subject, can be either total or partial. It is
regarded as total when the whole of the object is represented as affected
by the action of a transitive verb, and partial when only a part of it
is affected by such action. Thus in =mies ampui linnut=, _the man shot
the birds_, the object is total; but in =mies ampui lintuja=, _the man
shot some birds_, it is partial, because in the first case no birds are
thought of except those shot, who all come under the action of the verb,
whereas in the second there is a vague reference to all existing birds,
of which some only have been shot. Further, the object is regarded as
partial whenever the action of the verb is continuous or incomplete,
because the action is, so to speak, extending over the object, but has
not yet embraced the whole of it. Thus, in =minä kirjoitan kirjettä=, _I
am writing a letter_, the object is regarded as partial; but in =minä
olen kirjoittanut kirjeen=, _I have written a letter_, it is total. The
object of a negative verb is always in the partitive.