Kui me kolisime eestisse veebruaris ma kartsin, et me pidime elama koos ahjuga. Eestlased ise arvavad, et ahi on maailma kõige mõnusaim asi. Aga kui me elasime enne eestis, siis meie korter oli Kalamajas Tallinnas, kus asub palju puumaju. Igal tänaval seisis üks või kaks maja, mis olid mustad, sest et maja põles üks või kaks korda. Ma otsustasin seal Kalamajas, et ahjud on tegelikult vastikud asjad, ja mina eelistan raadiatorit ahjudele.Aga tagasi Tartus veebruaris, me leidsime, et ainult head kohad elada olid ahjudega. Minu arvamus muutus, ja edaspidi ma arvasin, et kui ainult üks maja põleb tänaval kus asub kümme maja, siis meil oli 90 protsenti võimalus elada koos ahjuga. 90 protsent on tegelikult täitsa hea ellujäämise määr!
Siis hakkasime elada koos ahjudega. Igal õhtul me tegisime tuli ahjus. Mina tõin puid korterisse. Ja panesime ikka meie paber prügi -- tualeti paberi rullid, vanad reklaamid, vanad Eesti Päevalehed -- ahju. Elu ahjuga on meie rutiin. On tavaline asi ahju kütta.
Praegu oleme külas New Yorgis ja meil ei ole siin ahjusid. Meil on ainult kaminad, kuhu me ei tohi vanad tualetti paberi rulli panna. Eriti hetkel, kui palju paberi jõulukingitustest on kumuleerinud, mul on päris suur vajadus ahju kütta. Ku ma näen need suured mäed pakkimispaberidest ma tunnen, et ahju on tarvis. Mu silmad kasvavad suuremaks iga vana kartongiga - ohoo, see sobib ahju. Aga ahjusid siin ei ole. Ainult kaminad ja keskküte. Mis on lahendus? Mis me peaks tegema meie vanade WC paberi rullidega?
Kas te saate kujuta ette, et ma pean elama ühe täis kuu ilma oma ahjuta? Kui raske on see elu.
[ENG] At first suspicious of Estonian wood heating, I now find myself missing it while spending the holidays in New York. The main reason is that -- with all the leftover wrapping paper around -- there are simply so many useful things to burn but no place to burn them. I find myself missing our Estonian 'ahi' for that purpose.
19 kommentaari:
Kui tore oli seda lugeda. Tubli!!!!
Väljend "mu silmad kasvasid suuremaks" on väga armas.
Ütle Epule, et ma nüüd kirjutasin vanaema Ainost ka suguvõsa blogisse!
Kõikidele palju kallisid ja musisid.
Helle
Maju ei pane põlema ahjuküte, vaid purjus peaga voodis suitsetamine.
I found your blog little while ago - Toomas from the Eesti Maja in NYC forwarded it to his mailing list. I figured it'd a great resource for my husband (I'm Estonian, he is American) as we hope to move to Estonia at some point in the future. I am really impressed with your Estonian - I am afraid Gary hasn't gotten further than learning some basic vocabulary. Did you take classes?
Hey, and if you pass Norwalk, CT - let us know!
Be careful of the inks in the paper. My husband, an engineer, always stops me from burning many types of paper/plastics because of the poisonous chemicals in them. Reds tend to be cadmium-based, white WAS traditionally lead-based, and I have forgotten what made yellow.
piss of course ?
I am really impressed with your Estonian - I am afraid Gary hasn't gotten further than learning some basic vocabulary. Did you take classes?
I took half a year of classes at Tallinna Keeltekool, but really I have learned about every way imaginable.
Also, don't think I didn't get help in writing this post. First i wrote it out on paper and I consulted the online dictionary for phrases I didn't know (like ellujäämise määr -- 'survival rate').
Then I had Epp look at it to make sure there weren't any huge mistakes. Some mistakes I made in my draft were 'kõige mõnuseim' -- instead of 'mõnusaim', and 'ahjud' instead of 'ahjusid.'
I am still not sure if I will know when to use 'ahjud' and 'ahjusid' next time. It's a bit tricky.
ahjud/ahjusid boils down to the nimetav/osastav thingy. You either mean the plural of oven or you use osastav in which case you are kind of addressing the ovens.
Braavo!
I am still not sure if I will know when to use 'ahjud' and 'ahjusid' next time. It's a bit tricky.
in particular case it could be made easier because of negation: "ei ole ahjusid". Negation can be used in two ways, first related to quantity, second to quality, demonstrated below.
Similar case is "palju" - a lot, also used in your story, which relates to quantity.
The similar case exists in some other languages like in French "beaucoup de", "pas de", requiring "de" because it relates to quantity. The same case is in Russian with "много" or "нет", which requires "родительный падеж" - this time changing of the relevant noun in plural the way similar to "ahjud - ahjusid".
Because of that distinction in Estonian you can also say "ei ole ahjud" (meaning "[these] aren't stoves), but as opposed to "ei ole ahjusid" ([there] aren't [any] stoves) the first case doesn't relate to quantity but to quality, in other words what kind of object it is not. With "palju" hovewer only one case exists, because "palju" always indicate quantity so you always need "osasihitis", which means that in case of "ahjud" you need to change them to "ahjusid".
meil ei ole siin ahjusid
Siin on ahjusid, sest lause vastab küsimusele:
mida meil siin ei ole?
Võiks ka kirjutada
siin meil ahjud puuduvad.
Siin on ahjud, sest lause vastab küsimusele:
mis meil siin puuduvad?
Your Estonian is really coming along.
Here's a tricky one I know only by feel.
#1 Pane kommarid ahju.
#2 Pane kommareid ahju.
Most English speakers would say #2 because the imperative takes a direct object ("put them in the oven", not "put they in the oven") But for some reason, it is #1 in Estonian -- but not in every instance.
Can anyone explain?
Your Estonian is really coming along.
Here's a tricky one I know only by feel.
#1 Pane kommarid ahju.
#2 Pane kommareid ahju.
Most English speakers would say #2 because the imperative takes a direct object ("put them in the oven", not "put they in the oven") But for some reason, it is #1 in Estonian -- but not in every instance.
Can anyone explain?
Am I off my rocker, or are #1 and #2 mixed up here? I would have said that #1 is the direct object
Your Estonian is really coming along.
Here's a tricky one I know only by feel.
#1 Pane kommarid ahju.
#2 Pane kommareid ahju.
Both are correct but have different meaning.
#1 means that put all the commies to oven (no matter how big the oven is).
#2 means something like fill the oven with commies (you don't have to shove all of them in).
Pane puud ahju - you have some billets and you want someone to put those into oven.
Pane puid ahju - add some billets to the oven
Most English speakers would say #2 because the imperative takes a direct object ("put them in the oven", not "put they in the oven") But for some reason, it is #1 in Estonian -- but not in every instance.
Can anyone explain?
I have been cheating by sort of slurring those parts when I speak so that no one is sure if I said 'kommarid' or 'kommareid'.
It's a trick I learned from some of my English students. They would just start to babble like John Cleese and who was I to say if what they mumbled was correct or not.
I'm slowly getting a hang on distinguishing between genitive and partitive here.
I mean, there are perfectly logical interpretations of the boundary between these two cases. Both in Estonian, and in Finnish. The only real difficulty for me is that these two interpretations aren't identical.
But could SOMEONE plase give me a logical explenation though for when the nominative is used, and why?
Mul on vaja raamat osta. (?)
Too raamat! (?)
...??
there's no logic I could think of, but ain't it the same in English?
Ahi. Hmmm. In Whole Foods here they sell Estonian birch logs for $9.99 a bunch. At that rate only the aristocracy can afford the ahi.
In Estonia almost everybody has ahi. What does that tell us?
Come on! Not everyone has an ahi over here. Only the really poor and the really rich. And the people in between.
Your Estonian is really coming along.
Here's a tricky one I know only by feel.
#1 Pane kommarid ahju.
#2 Pane kommareid ahju.
Most English speakers would say #2 because the imperative takes a direct object ("put them in the oven", not "put they in the oven") But for some reason, it is #1 in Estonian -- but not in every instance.
Both are "direct" objects, although the first is called "total object" (täissihitis) and the second one "partial object" (osasihitis). The first sentence means an order to put the commies to the stove ("all of them" or "all that we have here" or "all those you have caught so far"). The second one means "put some commies to the stove"
Postita kommentaar