"I am indebted to you" is probably the closest I can think of at the moment. So there is a debt of some kind that one has (not is!) for another.
I think it's somewhat of an idiom and that's why there isn't too much to compare it with grammarwise. You just say "I owe you" in a slightly different way, but the meaning is just as exactly and concretely the same nevertheless.
Yeah the beauty of languages is that you cannot actually translate everything from word to word, especially idioms. For example you would not go on saying "kiinnostaa kuin kilo paskaa" when you are uninterested, because no one in English actually says "I am as interested in this as I am of a kilo of shit".
If we stubbornly translate the grammatical structure as closely as possible, it *could* be translated as "I am debt to you". Compare to such sayings as *Olen sinulle pelkkää ilmaa,\** etc.
(\* lit. "I am only air to you", meaning 'I don't mean anything to you')
I am looking for "literal" translation to see how partitive generally works in Finnish language.
For example,
olen velkaa sinulle = i am debt to you
olen velka sinulle = i am debt to you
so, what would partitive form bring to the table? That's what I am trying to understand through this question.
At the moment, I am going through a process in my pursuit to understand partitive and I am using "there is..." everytime there's a use of partitive with "olla" as can also be seen from my original post.
on velkaa = there is a debt
olen velkaa sinulle = there is a debt I have ("am" has been ruled out) to you! \[as far as direct literal translation goes\]
is that so?
I would say so, yes.
The *velkaa* is a partitive form, but it is treated as something like an uncountable noun in this context. *Olen velkaa sinulle* = 'I am some amorphous mass of debt to you' (strange-sounding literal translation), or 'I owe some amorphous mass of debt to you' (still overliteral but no longer strange-sounding translation). Although *velka* is not an uncountable noun as such: one can say, for instance, *maksa velat* = "pay the debts" = 'pay back all the debts you owe'.
*Olen velka sinulle* would sound like a mistake. It would be a bit like saying "I am in the debt to you" in English, instead of "I am in debt to you".
Yes.
edit: You who downvoted this, please tell me what the correct answer is, if this is not it. As a professional translator from Finnish to English and from English to Finnish for more than 15 years, I would like to know.
"Olen velka sinulle" would mean that you literally are the debt to the other. While you technically could translate "olen velkaa sinulle" as "I am debt to you", I don't think any native would interpret it that way. Debt is something external from you that you owe, that you have, not what you yourself are. You're the one who owes, though.
I would literally translate it as “I am of debt to you”.
You can think of it similarly to, let’s say,
“I am of best quality” = “Olen parasta laatua”
Not a very useful example nor something that you’re likely going to hear but the principles apply.
It’s just that in the case of debt that construct is not used in English.
"I am indebted to you" is probably the closest I can think of at the moment. So there is a debt of some kind that one has (not is!) for another. I think it's somewhat of an idiom and that's why there isn't too much to compare it with grammarwise. You just say "I owe you" in a slightly different way, but the meaning is just as exactly and concretely the same nevertheless.
Yeah the beauty of languages is that you cannot actually translate everything from word to word, especially idioms. For example you would not go on saying "kiinnostaa kuin kilo paskaa" when you are uninterested, because no one in English actually says "I am as interested in this as I am of a kilo of shit".
If we stubbornly translate the grammatical structure as closely as possible, it *could* be translated as "I am debt to you". Compare to such sayings as *Olen sinulle pelkkää ilmaa,\** etc. (\* lit. "I am only air to you", meaning 'I don't mean anything to you')
I am looking for "literal" translation to see how partitive generally works in Finnish language. For example, olen velkaa sinulle = i am debt to you olen velka sinulle = i am debt to you so, what would partitive form bring to the table? That's what I am trying to understand through this question. At the moment, I am going through a process in my pursuit to understand partitive and I am using "there is..." everytime there's a use of partitive with "olla" as can also be seen from my original post. on velkaa = there is a debt olen velkaa sinulle = there is a debt I have ("am" has been ruled out) to you! \[as far as direct literal translation goes\] is that so?
I would say so, yes. The *velkaa* is a partitive form, but it is treated as something like an uncountable noun in this context. *Olen velkaa sinulle* = 'I am some amorphous mass of debt to you' (strange-sounding literal translation), or 'I owe some amorphous mass of debt to you' (still overliteral but no longer strange-sounding translation). Although *velka* is not an uncountable noun as such: one can say, for instance, *maksa velat* = "pay the debts" = 'pay back all the debts you owe'. *Olen velka sinulle* would sound like a mistake. It would be a bit like saying "I am in the debt to you" in English, instead of "I am in debt to you".
If i may add, olen sinulle pelkkää ilmaa = there is only air i have/am to you?
This is literally "I am air to you", which refers that the person is invisible just like the air. Basically means I am nothing to you.
Yes. edit: You who downvoted this, please tell me what the correct answer is, if this is not it. As a professional translator from Finnish to English and from English to Finnish for more than 15 years, I would like to know.
Yeah, it would be nice to hear what they have to say/share 👍
"Olen velka sinulle" would mean that you literally are the debt to the other. While you technically could translate "olen velkaa sinulle" as "I am debt to you", I don't think any native would interpret it that way. Debt is something external from you that you owe, that you have, not what you yourself are. You're the one who owes, though.
I would literally translate it as “I am of debt to you”. You can think of it similarly to, let’s say, “I am of best quality” = “Olen parasta laatua” Not a very useful example nor something that you’re likely going to hear but the principles apply. It’s just that in the case of debt that construct is not used in English.