TL;DR: In this article, a concatenational approach to the +OmstO formative used in deverbal inflection is presented, where morphological and semantic properties of the elative-case deverbal nouns are investigated.
Abstract: This article approaches the +OmstO formative used in deverbal inflection from a concatenational perspective. It describes the morphological distinction between the elative-case non-finite in +Om+stO (sams ‹ samsto ’to arrive’; oznoms ‹ oznomsto ’to pray’; molÍems ‹ molÍemste ’to go’) and its counterpart the elative-case deverbal noun in +OmA+stO (sams ‹ samosto ’to arrive’; oznoms ‹ oznomasto ’to pray’; molÍems ‹ molÍemasto ’to go’). These parallel forms are then subjected to further morphological and semantic inspection: (1) compatibility with the three declination types, indefinite (zero), possessive (cross-referential adnominal person morphology) and definite (determiner) marking, and (2) compatibility with functions attributed to the elative case of other common nouns. Finally, a tendency is discerned according to which both inflection types can be regarded as elativecase nouns distinguished by a [±progressIve] parameter, whereby the so-called gerund is indicates a process, and the so-called deverbal noun a result.
TL;DR: In the Finnish language, the elative case has many other usages and some of them are in the process of grammaticalization as discussed by the authors, which suggests that an elative argument can be regarded as a quasi-object, although the degree of objecthood is very low indeed.
Abstract: In the Finnish language the elative case, whose ending is –sta or –sta, is classified as an internal locative case and mainly used to indicate a place from which some entity moves outwards. However, the elative case has many other usages and some of them are in the process of grammaticalization. First of all, an elative stimulus argument of some psych verbs has something in common with a partitive stimulus argument, which serves clearly as the object. Second, some predicates, not so many though, can take as their complement both a partitive argument and an elative argument alternatively. This fact also shows that an elative argument of some predicates has object-like properties to some extent. Third, an elative argument of some predicates referring to a target of the described activity has a part-whole relation with a co-occurring object. All these things suggest that an elative argument can be sometimes regarded as a quasi-object, although the degree of objecthood is very low indeed. This quasi-object refers to a predefined entity that is qualitatively definite.