<i>Moni</i> or <i>monta</i>? The collective vs. distributive opposition between two forms of the quantifier ‘many’ in Finnish

In this work I explore the semantics of two case forms of the Finnish quantifier moni ‘many’: the regular nominative moni and the regular partitive monta [ mon-ta many-PARTITIVE], which however has taken on a function similar to that of the nominative of numerals and is thus not a functional partitive anymore. This development has apparently motivated the rise of the pleonastic montaa [ mon-ta-a many-PARTITIVE-PARTITIVE] to unambiguously mark the partitive. I argue that an important difference between moni and monta is the opposition between a distributive and a collective meaning: in ambiguous contexts, moni is clearly distributive and monta collective. I compare the two with the nominative form of the near-synonymous quantifier usea ‘several; a number of’ which in similar contexts displays ambiguity between the distributive and collective readings. The analysis sheds new light to the division of labor between the two (functional) nominative forms of moni , showing that they divide the functions of the nominative in an idiosyncratic way. Kokkuvote. Tuomas Huumo: Moni voi monta ? Distributiivse ja kollektiivse tahenduse vastandus soome keele kvantori moni ‘mitu’ kahe kaandevormi vahel. Artikkel kasitleb soome keele kvantori moni ‘mitu’ kahe kaandevormi tahenduserinevusi. Vordlusobjektideks on reegliparane nominatiiv moni ning reegliparaselt moodustatud partitiivivorm monta [ mon-ta mitu-PARTITIIV ‘mitut’], millel siiski on tekkinud arvsonade nominatiivile sarnane funktsioon ning mis seetottu ei ole enam funktsionaalne partitiiv. See areng on toenaoliselt motiveerinud ka pleonastilise, kahe partitiivilopuga vormi mon-ta-a [mitu-PARTITIIV-PARTITIIV] teket, mis valjendab uhetahenduslikult partitiivi funktsioone. Artikli pohivaide on, et oluline erinevus vormide moni ja monta vahel on distributiivse ja kollektiivse tahenduse vastandamine: mitmetitolgendatavates kontekstides annab moni edasi distributiivset, monta aga kollektiivset tahendust. Artiklis vorreldakse nimetatud kaht vormi lisaks ka semantiliselt lahedase kvantori usea ‘mitu; arvukas’ nominatiivivormiga. Usea on sarnastes kontekstides mitmetahenduslik ning voib edasi anda nii distributiivset kui ka kollektiivset tahendust. Kokkuvottes valgustab analuus seni kasitlemata vaatenurgast kvantori moni kahe (funktsionaalses mottes nominatiivi-)vormi toojaotust, mis on usnagi idiosunkraatiline. Votmesonad : kvantor; kaane; partitiiv; kollektiivne vs. distributiivne tahendus; soome keel