Suomen kieli ulkomaalaisille/Sisältö/Objektin sijan valinta

The choice of case for the object in a sentence is one of the most challenging things for the foreigner to get right.

You can gain a thorough understanding of the rules by reading this section of the book.

The section is still in development so if you have any questions about this page, please click on the discussion tab and start discussing! Anyone can raise a question or answer it. Please correct any errors you find here.

What is the object in the sentence?

In grammar, the word object has a special meaning different from its general meaning. It does not mean "thing", but the element in the sentence that is referred or acted upon by the action of verb. It can also mean the outcome of the verb action.

Thus in the following sentences, the word "glass" is the object or part of an object phrase.

He picked up the glass.

He installed some new glass in the window.

The church contained a lot of painted glass.

But in the sentence "The glass fell to the floor", the word glass is the subject not the object, because it is performing the action of the verb. (There is no object in this sentence. "to the floor" is an adverbial phrase).

The object in a sentence is often a noun (as was the case with "glass" above), but it can also be a pronoun.

May I kiss you?

Give it to me!

It can also be a number or some other quantifier

Give me half a dozen

It can also be an adjective.

Do you want the red or the blue?

Make sure you understand these points before trying to continue with this chapter. This is important because Finnish marks the object with a case. But the correct case will depend on the circumstances.

Partitive and Accusative Object

The case of the Object is either Partitive or Accusative.

• The object will be in the partitive if the process of the verb is what is important or if the action of the verb is non-final (i.e. there is no final outcome).

• The object will be in the accusative if the outcome of the action in the verb is what is important or if the action of the verb is final or resultative (there is some definite final outcome).

These are general rules, but they may be modified slightly according to the detailed grammar rules. Some of these have to be applied absolutely, and some are subject to a degree of choice depending on what is needed to be conveyed. We will examine these exceptional rules later on.

Lets look at some examples.

The Partitive Object

In Finnish, if the object is only in part affected by the action of the verb (and often this refers to cases where the action of the verb does not complete) the case of the object is the Partitive.

Where the action is complete or planned to be completed for the whole object, the case form of the object is the Accusative.

Minä luen kirjaa I am reading a book

Here the verb lukea (to read) is in the present tense form luen (I read) or I am reading. But the object kirja (book) is in the partitive kirjaa. The reason for this is that the action is incomplete, as the book is only partly read.

But now look at the following sentence.

Minä luin kirjan I read the book

Here the verb is in the past tense and the whole book was read. The word kirjan is not in the partitive case but rather the accusative.

But if the book was only partly read...

Minä luin kirjaa I read some of the book

Finnish has no need for separate words expressing "some of" because the partitive case carries that meaning instead.

And just to round things off, consider the following

Minä luen kirjan. I will read the book

Here the object book is not in the partitive, so we know we are talking about the WHOLE book. But the verb is not in the past tense but the present. As Finnish has no future tense, the meaning is clearly one of intent to read the WHOLE book. Hence, the correct translation is "I will read the book".

If the object is actually a plural, then the form will be plural. Compare the following carefully. There are some replicate items with alternative interpretations. The meaning will often be clear from the context.

Partitive (Present/Future)

Minä luen kirjoja I will read some books (part of some unspoken about group of books, but I'm not saying if I will finish reading any of them)

Minä luen kirjoja I'm reading some books (part of some unspecified class of books)

Minä luen kirjoja I'm reading the books (the books we have speaking about, but I've not finished reading them)

Compare to the Accusative (in Present/Future)

Minä luen kirjat I will read the books (all of the books about which we may have been speaking)

Partitive (Imperfect)

Minä luin kirjoja I read some books (I read at least 2 books which I may or may not have finished reading. In the latter case I am stressing that activity of reading is what was important to me)

Compare to the Accusative (Imperfect)

Minä luin kirjat I read the books (The definite books about which we may have been speaking, and I finished reading them all)

The Total Object (also known as the accusative)

If the case of the object is not Partitive it will be Accusative, which we can think of as being a "whole" or "total object" case. But it gets a little more complicated because Finnish has several accusative (whole or total object) forms.

• the -N Accusative

this is morphologically identical to the genitive singular and is used for singular objects.

• the -T Accustative

Nouns have a -T accusative form that is morphologically identical to the nominative plural and is used for plural objects.

Pronouns also have a -T accusative ending, even if the meaning is singular

Note however, that some pronoun forms have a nominative plural form that is not the same as the accusative.

E.g. Kuka? (who) has nominative plural ketkä but accusative kenet.

• the Unmarked Accusative

This is morphologically identical to the nominative singular and applies to singular objects in clauses if the verb does not carry a personal ending. These situations are all passive verbal forms, with an infinitive, or in imperative construction. The infinitive case includes all "must do" phrases using "täytyy", "pitää" etc.

Note: Objects in ownership phrases using the adessive (-lla / -llä) plus "on" are also unmarked if the meaning is singular and none of the partitive rules apply (though some grammaticians would argue that the owned object is really a subject!).

However if the object (or subject if you are pedantic) in these sentences is plural, then the object will be in the -T accusative (or T-nominal for pedants!).

The Partitive Object Rules

Partial objects

Rule: Partial objects take the partitive case

Otin makeisia. I took some sweets (candy) but not all of them.

makeisia is the partitive plural of makeinen, sweet or candy.

Uncountables or indefinite amounts

Rule: Uncountable objects are expressed in the partitive if the quantity is uncertain or not expressed or implied

Tarvitsemme juustoa

We need cheese

What makes an object countable? Cheese is only countable if we add some unit. So we can can say I'll have three hundred grams of cheese but just saying I'll have three cheeses is meaningless. Cheese is therefore uncountable.

But if the quantity is certain and a number is not used to express the quantity, then the object will not be partitive

tuo nuo juustot!

bring those cheeses!

that is, those cheeses, certain in quantity, about which we have been speaking

Enumerated objects other than one

Rule: Where objects are quantified by number, the object following the number is in the partitive SINGULAR but the number itself is in the unmarked accusative. This does not apply if the number is one or implies singularity.

Me ostimme neljä uutta talvirengasta We bought four new winter tyres (tires)

uusi talvirengas new winter tyre is put into the partitive SINGULAR uutta talvirengasta but the number four is is in the unmarked accusative singular (same as nominative singular).

but if the number is one...

Kuljettaja joutui vaihtamaan yhden renkaan The driver had to change one tyre (tire)

yksi rengas is put into the -N accusative yhden renkaan because the numner is "one".

See also Unmarked Accusative Rules for discussion regarding numbers.

On going action

Rule: If the action of the verb is still in progress, the object case will be partitive.

Hän on maalannut taloa He has been painting the house but its not yet finished

House, talo, is in the singular partitive form taloa.

Irresultative outcomes

Rule: If the action of the verb was in the past but did not completed or did not result in anything comclusive or final, the object affected by the verb will be partitive

Bob yritti korjata tilannetta Bob tried to correct the situation but he did not succeed

situation, tilanne, is in the partitive singular form, tilannetta.

Activity verbs (emphasis on the activity not the outcome)

Rule: Process and Activity verbs stressing the verb rather than outcome take partitive.

This is a general rule. Many verbs express actions that tend to be continuous or extend over time and by their very nature do not necessarily of themselves create an outcome, although an outcome may cause the process to stop. These verbs tend to take partitive objects where it is the process rather than the outcome is the main meaning behind the verb.

Verbs expressing emotions are often like this too.

Ajattelen sinua

I'm thinking about you

Odotan bussia

I'm waiting for the bus

Etsin töitä

I'm seeking work

Miten voimme auttaa sinua?

How can we help you?

Saako lapsille mainostaa roskaruokaa?

Can junk food be advertised to children?

Harrastan tanssia

I'm interested in dancing

Rakastan sinua

I love you

Ihailetko Annea?

Do you admire Anne?

Useful tip: Some good dictionaries will indicate the case government in one or both languages.

For instance

Harrastaa jtak. To be interested in

jtak. =abbreviation of jotakin, which is the word jokin in partitive case. Jokin in English means something

So its a good idea to learn the case government when you learn the verb (just as one might learn the gender of an object in French or Spanish).

The partitive rules above are rather dependent on choice of meaning. We can see that we can imply some meaning by selecting the partitive case where in English that meaning is conveyed fully only with extra words. The remaining rules are either general rules of thumb regarding language use connected with the partial/Total distinction, or absolute rules which must be followed.

Although we have discussed the partitive object generally above, there are some circumstances where the object is always in the partitive regardless of partial subject or partial outcome. These will be defined as absolute rules. We will now look at these rules.

Negation and partitive object

Rule: The object in a negative clause is always in the partitive

This is an Absolute Rule and is easy to remember. It has nothing to do with total or partial object.

Näetkö sinä Markun? En. En näe Markkua.

Do you see Markku? No. I can't see Markku.

The sentence "En näe Markkua" is negative in character. The object is therefore in the partitive case.

Etkö ymmärrä tätä tekstiä?

Don't you understand this text?

En ymmärrä mitään!

I don't understand anything!

Älä sulje ovea!

Don't close the door!

The negative word älä forces the word door into the partitive case.

Expressing simultaneous actions

Rule: If two things are happening at the same time, the objects will be in the partitive case. If they happen sequentially they will be in the accusative. For example

Söin aamiaista ja luin lehteä.

I ate breakfast and read the paper (both at the same time)

Söin aamiaisen ja luin lehden

I ate breakfast and read the paper (but not at the same time)

Kulutetaanko objektin tarkoittama asia loppuun vai käytetäänkö sitä vain vähän?

Haluan käyttää teippiäsi? (teippiä otetaan vain vähän)

- vrt. Haluan käyttää teippisi? (teippi käytetään loppuun)

jokin pieni sana voi kertoa, että toiminta on meneillään/prosessi

esim. vielä, kauan, kuinka kauan, jatkuvasti, juuri, nyt

Luen vielä tätä kirjaa.

Kuinka kauan siivoat autotallia?

lukusana (nominatiivi) substantiivi (partitiivi)

Ostin hänelle neljä tulppaania.

- vrt. Ostan yhden kirjan. Ostetaan hänelle yksi kirja. (yksi on poikkeus ja taipuu sekä päätteellisessä, että päätteettömässä akkusatiivissa)

Abstract ideas

Rule: Abstract ideas are expressed in the partitive. This is a general rule.

Köyhät tarvitsevat myötätuntoamme

The poor need our sympathy

Sympathy is an abstract concept

The Accusative or Total Object Rules

It is essentially true that if the object is not going to be in the partitive, it will be in the accusative. The issue will then be which of the 3 forms of the accusative object will be adopted.

-N accusative Rules

The -N accusative is perhaps the most common form and can best be thought of as the default if the object does not meet the partitive rules, or the -T Accusative Rules or Unmarked Accusative Rules . If you apply all the other rules, you will never use the -N accusative incorrectly. (<< Those sound like famous last words! -Ed.).

The object will always be total, i.e. affecting the whole object or the verb has a conclusive outcome affecting the object (so the general partitive does not apply), will not be plural (so the -T rules does not apply), and none of the exceptional partitive rules apply (so it will not, for example be in a negative sentence), and none of the absolute Unmarked Accusative rules apply (e.g. the verb is not passive).

-T accusative rules

Rule 1: The -T accusative will be used where the object is plural and total (affecting the whole object or the verb has a conclusive outcome affecting the object), and where none of the exceptional partitive rules apply (e.g. it is not in a negative sentence)

Anna minulle työkalut Give me the tools (All the tools, not some of them)

Rule 2: Personal pronouns as Whole Object cases take the -T accusative ending, even if the pronoun is singular.

Hän pelasti meidät/minut! He saved us!!

Unmarked Accusative

Numbers

If a number is used to express quantity, the number itself will be in the Un-marked Accusative and the object following it will usually be in the partitive singular because of the usual number rules regarding partitive singular after numbers.

Söin kolme omenaa

I ate three apples

Kolme three is the object in this sentence and is in the umarked Accusative

omenaa apples is also an object but it is in the partitive SINGULAR

The meaning is 3 WHOLE items which are PART of a wider group of all apples.

The number is not really attributive because a number can stand for an object alone and will still be in this unmarked accusative form. For instance "K: Montako omenaa söit? V:söin kolme" Q: How many apples did you eat? A: I ate three"

But

Söin yhden omenan

I ate one apple

Yksi omena means one apple in nominative form but as the one apple was completely eaten and this was specified as one apple, we use the -N accusative to express this, i.e. yhden omenan. It matters not that this is just one apple of all the apples that could have been eaten (!!) and this is generally true when the number one is used. So here comes a new general rule.

• General Rule: When using a number as part of an object phrase, the case of the number will always be the unmarked accusative (i.e. the same as the nominal or dictionary form) and the item following it will be partitive UNLESS the number is one, in which case both the number and the object will take the -N accusative EXCEPT in cases where the overriding Partitive Rules apply (e.g. for negative phrases) in which case both number and object will be in the partitive.

This covers the possible negative construction

en syönyt pääsiäismunaa koko pääsiäisenä

the Easter Egg

en syönyt pääsiäismunia koko pääsiäisenä

any Easter eggs

en syönyt yhtään pääsiäismunaa koko pääsiäisenä

I've not eaten a single easter egg over the whole of Easter

yhtään is, strictly speaking, adverbial rather than object, and means "at all", but its roots in the partitive form of one, yhtä is clearly visible. c.f. Mikä and ei mikään.

Passive verbs

Rule: If the verb is passive, then the total object will be in the Unmarked Accusative case if singular or the -T accusative if plural (i.e. the same as the equivalent nominal forms) unless an overriding partitive rule applies.

Ortodoksikirkko korjattiin kesällä. Kirkon lattiat korjataan myöhemmin. The orthodox church was repaired during the summer. The floors of the church will be repaired later.

Orthodox church is in the Unmarked accusative singular (same as nominative form) and floors is expressed with the plural -T accusative (same as nominative plural).

In practise this is rather easy to remember as passive sentences have the object before the verb. It us rather more natural to regard the object as if it were a subject in the nominal case. Object case selection to nominative or accusative usually happens after the verb has been uttered (in SVO type sentences), so this does not arise in the case of passive sentences.

An on-going process will take the Partitive Object

When an activity is still ongoing the object will usually be in the partitive.

Luen kirjaani

I'm reading my book

Present tense, the activity is in progess

But if verb is in the present but the activity is not ongoing, but the object is in the accusative, the meaning of the verb is futuristic

Luen kirjani

I'll read my book

The possessive suffix amalgamates with the accusative -n. The verb meaning is in the future.

And this ongoing nature that is expressed by the partitive can even be used in the imperfect past tense.

Luin kirjaani

I was reading my book

This is a statement of fact about an ongoing activity that happened in the past. Because it was ongoing and not completed the object is in the partitive case.

And finally

Luin kirjani

I finished reading my book

Finnish expresses the finality of the reading by putting the case into the Accusative.

tekeminen on sen lopputulosta tärkeämpi tai se kuinka kauan jotain tehdään on tärkeämpää kuin valmiiksi saaminen

Resolving conflicting rules

In the case of commands it does rather depend on what the speaker is trying to convey. For instance, consider the following.

Auta vanhus bussiin. Help the senior onto the bus!

The verb auttaa (help) could be a continuous action that may or may not be resultative and will often be in the partitive. But the object in a command phrase takes the unmarked accusative because the completion of the action is what is important. So in this case it is the outcome that is important not the process. Getting the person onto the bus is what is important in this command and it must be completed. Hence in this case the object vanhus, senior citizen is in the accusative and not the partitive vanhusta.

Compare this with:

Odota iltaa! Wait (until the) evening!

Here, the processes of the verb is what is important, not the outcome. Hence the object evening is is in the partitive.

A similar idea is seen in the following examples:

Luen joka aamu lehteä.

I read the newspaper every morning

Here its the process that is important not the outcome. The speaker is just expressing what he does habitually. The word 'newspaper' is therefore in the partitive case.

Consider the following:

Luen joka aamu lehden.

I make sure I read the newpaper every morning

The speaker has used the accusative case and not the partitive case. This means that its not the casual process of reading the paper that is being expressed (as in the previous example) but the actual meaningful activity of getting it read. So the outcome is what is being stressed and not the process. Hence the object case is not partitive but accusative. Hence the English translation is not word for word a translation from the Finnish.

Akkusatiiviobjekti (kun toiminnan tulos on tärkeä)

n-päätteinen akkusatiivi, kun toiminnan tulos on tärkeä

Milloin pidämme tauon?

Haluan saada kirjan.

päätteetön akkusatiivi, jos tuloslauseessa on passiivi, imperatiivi tai yksipersoonainen verbi

Milloin seuraava tauko pidetään? (passiivi)

Sulkekaa ovi! (imperatiivi)

t-päätteinen akkusatiivi on tuloslauseen monikossa ja persoonapronomineilla (joilla on vain t-päätteinen akkusatiivi)

Nyt näette minut.

Pysäytä hänet!

Kenet sinä näit?

Luin eilen kaikki lehdet.

Ota kynät pois lattialta!

Jotkin verbit vaikuttavat toimintaverbeiltä, mutta ne ovat TULOSVERBEJÄ.

esim. nähdä, tuntea (joku), tavata, muistaa, unohtaa, kuulla, aloittaa, tarvita

Näen tytön kadulla.

Muistan eilisen tapauksen.

Tarvitsen kynän.

Joskus elollisen ja elottoman välillä on eroa.

Ymmärsin tekstin hyvin.

Ymmärsin häntä hyvin.

Vertaa seuraavia verbejä toisiinsa. (tulos/prosessi)

Muistan tapauksen.

Muistelen tapausta.

Katsoin elokuvan.

Katselin elokuvaa.

Kuulin ohjelman radiosta.

Kuuntelin ohjelmaa radiosta.

Why is object marking difficult for English speakers?

Object marking in English is rare

English, on the whole, does not specially mark the object in a sentence.

There is only one type of word in English that is always marked as an object and this is the personal pronoun. When a personal pronoun in English is the object in a sentence, it goes into a special form called the accusative.

John gave the book to me. Me is the accusative form of I

John took him to Helsinki. Him is the accusative form of He

John kissed her tenderly. Her is the accusative form of She

John took us back to Turku. Us is the accusative form of We

John loved them all. Them is the accusative form of They

But "you" and "it" are the same in both the nominative and accusative forms. So "you" and "it" is both the nominative and accusative forms.

So special object cases are not so unfamiliar to the English speaker, but it only happens in this rather special case.

Finnish on the other hand requires not only that the object is marked, but the form of the marking will vary according to some rather complex rules and there are several different forms of the object case depending on the circumstances. This is the tricky part.

In some clauses it is difficult to know what is an object and what is a subject

Consider for example an ownership phrase. Finnish does have a specific verb omistaa meaning to own but it is rarely used. Ownership is usually expressed differently.

Consider for example the following 3 examples

Minä omistan uuden talvitakin I own a new winter coat

Minulla on uusi talvitakki I've got a new winter coat or more literally At me is a new winter coat

Talvitakki on minun The winter coat is mine

In the first sentence we have a verb expressing ownership and it is a complete ownership. We have a personal pronoun minä which is the subject, a verb form omistan expressing ownership, and an object, uusi talvitakki which is transformed into the Genitive Accustive form uuden talvitakin because of the object rules which will be explained later.

But in the second example, which is the more normal Finnish way of expressing posession, it is not so easy to identify whether a winter coat is the object or the subject. It certainly is an object in the English translation, but the Finnish construction is more or less At me is a new winter-jacket, so minulla here is adverbial (denoting "where at"), "on" is the verb expressing existence, but does this mean that talvi-takki is the subject or the object? The answer is, that Finnish grammaticians would regard talvitakki as the SUBJECT and therefore it is the SUBJECT rules rather than the OBJECT rules that apply.. This is why uusi talvitakki is in the nominative case in the second phrase but in the genetive accusative in the first.

Similarly in the third sentence, talvitakki is the subject not the object and and is therefore in the nominative case.

But don't worry too much if you don't understand this. Even Finns will argue the point amongst themselves, so you are not alone!

Word order in Finnish gives no clue as to what the object is

This is more of a problem when it comes to understanding Finnish. In English we usually know what the object by where it comes relative to the verb. In English the most common sequence, as in Finnish, is Subject-Verb-Object. This is also the case in Finnish, but it is less strictly adhered to than in English.

For example

The cat is chasing the mouse.

The Cat is the subject, chases is the verb, and the mouse the object. We only know this because in English, in sentences of this type, the subject comes first, then the verb, then the object. If we want to keep the same meaning in English but re-arrange the word order, we have to specially mark the object and do some complex somersaults with the verb to convey approximately the same meaning.

The mouse is being chased by the cat.

The different verb structure "is being chased" immediately marks the preceding noun the mouse as being the object rather than the subject in this sentence. The addition of the word "by" marks "the cat" as the subject.

In Finnish it is much easier to move the sequence, but because the object is marked, it always remains the object, so it just gives different shades of meaning.

The following examples will help to illustrate the point.

In the English sentence Marja loves Timo we know because of word order and standard construction that Marja is the subject doing the loving and Timo is the object of her love. If the phrase was reversed Timo loves Marja the roles of the people in the sentence is reversed and the whole meaning changes. This is not the case in Finnish because the subject is specially marked.

Lets look at the sentence in Finnish and see what happens.

1. S-V-O Marja rakastaa Timoa Marja loves Timo ... a sheer statement of fact

2. O-V-S Timoa rakastaa Marja Marja loves Timo ... or better "Timo is loved by Marja" and not some other woman

3. O-S-V Timoa Marja rakastaa Marja loves Timo or better.. it's Timo that Marja loves (and not somebody else)

4. V-S-O Rakastaa Marja Timoa Marja loves Timo ...... or better it's love that Marja has for Timo and not some other emotion or motive

S, V and O here refer to Subject, Verb and Object.

Notice that in all three Finnish sentence Timoa is the name Timo in the partitive case. The reason for this is that loving it is an irresultative action, but the key thing to note is that it marks Timo as being the subject of the sentence. Changing the word order does not radically change the meaning of the sentence in Finnish as it does in English but it does change the emphasis. So although the core meaning is the same, (i.e. Marja is doing the loving and Timo is being loved) the secondary message in each sentence is different.

Because Timo is in the partitive and Marja is in the nominative their roles in the sentence stay as object and subject regardless of word order. In Finnish, definiteness can often be conveyed by bringing that which is definite to the front of the sentence, whereas English does this with intonation to stress the point. But note the exception in example 2 above where the subject comes last. The equivalent stresss in English in this case would go on Marja, but note how the English words have to be radically altered to convey different shades of meaning!

If the point about definiteness still seems strange, perhaps you should consider this more familiar example:

Auto on kadulla The car is in the street

Kadulla on auto There is a car on the street

Definiteness and indefiniteness expressed in English is done by using the indefinite a or the definite article the. In Finnish it is often expressed by changing the word order (definite items at the front). But changing the word order makes it more difficult to spot which is the subject and which is the object.

Flowchart

Follow the chart to determine if the object is going to be partitive, accusative, nominative, or if the clause has an object at all. Indicators to look for are:

• Negative clauses — "Minä en syö omenaa."
• Partitive verbs — "Minä rakastan omenaa." Minä rakastan yhtä omenaa. Minä rakastan kahta omenaa.
• Indefinite amounts — "Minä syön osan omenaa."
• Definite amounts that are more than one — "Minä syön kaksi omenaa."
• Definite amounts that are fractional — "Minä syön puoli omenaa."
• Irresultative verbs — "Minä etsin omenaa."
• Place of being clauses — "Minulla on omena."
• State of being clauses — "Hedelmä on omena."
• Imperative clauses — "Anna omena."
• Necessity clauses — "Sinun täytyy antaa omena."
• Conditional?
• Passive?

  ┌───────────────────────• 1. Negative
  Yes                       No
  ↓                         ↓
  2. State of Being • Yes ──┐
  No                        │
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 2. Partitive verb
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 3. Indefinite amount
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 4. Amount more than one
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 5. Fractional amount
  │                         No
  ↓                         ↓
  ┌────────────────── Yes • 6. Irresultative
  │                         No
  │                         ↓
  │                         7. Place of being • Yes ┐
  │                         No                      │
  │                         ↓                       │
  │                         8. State of being •┐    │
  │                         No                 │    │
  │                         ↓                  ↓    │
  │                         9. Imperative •────┐    │
  │                         No                 │    │
  │                         ↓                  ↓    │
  │                         10. Necessity •────┐    │
  │                         No                Yes   │
┌─↓─────────┐      ┌────────↓────┐ ┌───────────↓┐ ┌─↓───────────────────────────┐
│ Partitive │      │ Accusative  │ │ Nominative │ │ Locative word not an object │
└───────────┘      └─────────────┘ └────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────┘