Talk:Estonian grammar

Estonia Mid‑importance

Estonian grammar is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles
Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles)
Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it
Maintain : Portal:Estonia
Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia)
Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please don't delete this page; it is simply a translation of the estonian version. thank you Rushisawesome88 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this really about grammar? 77.116.7.183 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly NOT about grammar. Unless someone objects, I will delete all sections except for "Cases"; instead, I'm going to write some basics of the Estonian grammar (and I hope someone else joins me and helps). The current page mostly deals with phonology, which is already described in the main Estonian language article. If someone still finds something useful about the current text, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonian_grammar&oldid=212172065 Greg-si (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

la, -nna, -tar, -ur, -stik, -ndik, -nik, -ik, -k, -ng, -lane, -line, -kene, -ke, -e, -ndus, -dus, -us, -is, -kond, -nd, -istu, -u are derivational suffixes, not inflectional. -- 90.190.23.233 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. 81.20.159.197 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abessive & Ablative

Shouldn't they be switched places in table? It looks like an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.18.203 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation

Even though a linguist (Indo-Europeanist) by training I find this particular presentation of Estonian grammar extremely difficult to follow. Is this 'standard fare' for Estonian? It appears to me a very compressed summary, and makes assumptions on the part of the novice which demand a much clearer and more explicit elucidation of significant aspects of Estonian grammar, for example, case-forms and their derivational relationships. What is presented in the tables is hardly sufficient. Geoff Powers (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusative case

Should this be marked in the table?

You can mark the direct object with 3 different cases. F.e "Ma tapsin mehe" (I killed man[gen.]) but "ma lõin meest" (I hit man[part.]) In plural nominative is used - "Ma tapsin mehed" (I killed men[nom.]) but "Ma lõin mehi" (I hit men[part.])

I don't see a reason to represent the accusative form when it is different with verbs.

Someone with more knowledge of this should explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombones (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In "Ma tapsin mehe" it is the accusative form. The genitive form is used for possession and similar things, such as "Ma tapsin mehe koera". They are different functions and are used differently, they just happen to be the same in form. This is called syncretism. CodeCat (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So accusative (same as genitive in singular, same as nominative in plural) is used for telic objects. But why is it called "accusative case" when it is only used for telic objects, while partitive and nominative are used for every other direct object? Shouldn't it be called "Telic case" or something like that? Strombones (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusative is just what it has traditionally been called. CodeCat (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks for clearing it up. Strombones (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verbs Table

The section on verb conjugations has got to be the most confusing part of the Estonian Grammar. If I had to edit this, I really do not know where to start.

Has anyone thought of breaking the large table down into separate verb tables according to tenses?

PeterR63 (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please simplify the article.

Grammatical processes: the discussion of consonant gradation should be simplified and the reader referred to tables of declension and conjunction for details. (Assibilation? That sounds like an obscure etymological side discussion.)

The discussion of nouns, cases, and adjectives should be more unified, particularly when adjectives agree in case with nouns, although they are discussed more or less in the right order.

A discussion of personal pronouns and a simple conjugation of some basic verbs would be great to place prominently in the article.

It's a Wikipedia article. Please try to think about the average reader trying to learn the introductory basics of a second language, not an academic doctoral dissertation on obscure side topics in linguistics.

The reader oftentimes just wants to know how to construct a very simple, grammatically correct sentence in whatever language. Thank you. justinacolmena (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with assessment of relative inaccessibility to the lay; plea for improvement

I just started reading the section on consonant gradation in this article, and was struck by the absence of a definition of gradation. Is it a category that coincides with consonant gemination, or does it include other categories / aspects as well? I would prefer a knowledgeable person (which w.r.t. Estonian I am certainly not) give a definition like:

Gradation is a category (property) of a word that includes / involves consonant length and ...

Then (only) in the second paragraph I encountered something that hints at a definition: "Gradation correlates with the appearance of extra length on a syllable. When a syllable is long, the strong grade will always be accompanied by extra length." But still I cannot understand what practical consequences syllable length has and whether it shows up in vowels, (some of the) consonants, or both.

Next is a section that I happen to understand even less of. W.r.t. the sentence "Standing alone after a short vowel, the strong grade appears as a double voiceless consonant, while a single voiceless consonant appears in the weak grade." the following questions arise:

Exactly what is standing alone? A letter? A consonant sound? Anything else?
What is meant by "a double voiceless consonant"? Is this meant at grapheme (letter) level? Or at phoneme (meaning distinguishing (underlying) sound structure) level? Or at the phonetic (pronunciation) level?

The sentence "After a long vowel, or in a consonant cluster, the strong grade appears with a single voiceless consonant, while a voiced consonant appears in the weak grade." brings the following to mind:

I have a hard time understanding which property provokes which effect. If at all there is a cause-effect relation, I would prefer the cause be mentioned first and the effect follow, e.g.: "the weak grade causes a voiced consonant (again: grapheme or phoneme or sound?) to appear" (if at all my understanding of the clause in question is correct).

Then the first table does not make clear whether the third column holds graphemes (apart from the backticks) or rather (approximate) phonemic or phonetic expressions.

I did not yet check the separate Consonant gradation article, but - also for me - already this part of the article is hardly understandable, I am afraid to say.Redav (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]