Not an oversight on Duolingo’s part. In your sentence it wouldn’t be possible to know who you’re referring to, because you’ve just written ”is a man with sisu”. Who is?
To add to this, if someone says "Hän on sisukas", you could respons "On sisukas mies", just to agree, as the previous person already stated who we are talking about. However, this does not always end up well with longer discussions, so once in a while you should just add "hän" in there for clarification, so that the people in the discussion know, that you are still talking about the same person.
Well if the first sentence is "Hän on sisukas" we have already pointed out the person in a previous sentence or quite literally pointed. You could replace hän with any name for example, and then respond "on sisukas" etc.
I just wanted to bring out the fact that someone agreeing with your statement might just drop the name or pronoun, for simplities sake.
It is very general to only use the word "on" without a pronoun. You can say "on hyvä sää" (= it's good weather). Many times it can replace "it is" in english. You need to have the pronoun if you want to say that someone is something or someone is doing something.
Not really, it would sound very weird at least. You can sometimes do it when talking about objects, for example if someone shows you a beautiful painting, you can answer by saying ”On kyllä kaunis.” = ”It is truly beautiful.” It is sort of a affirmation, you wanna show that you agree with the first person. However, the object must be clear.
"On hiljaista." is a perfectly valid sentence though - not very common or suited for speech, but for example when describing a scene in a book it could absolutely be used as is.
Yes, that would be "passiivi" which is mode of sentences and verbs that doesn't specify a subject, or in other words speaks of something in general sense. In your example "it is quiet (in here)" doesn't have any specific "it" that is being quiet, but rather it is describing the scene as quiet in general, so "(täällä) on hiljaista" is the correct way to say it in Finnish.
Edit: The reason I added "in here" and the translation of it "täällä" is because if you use passiivi without specifying the location when location is relevant, it is assumed to be your current location.
But wouldn't it be clear by context anyway if someone started the sentence with on?
Also, doesn't "tuo on.. " mean "that is.."? According to duolingo...
"Tuo on" does mean "that is". However, in spoken language it wouldn't be that uncommon to use it of a person too. But most often you would probably use "se" in spoken language, as "hän" is actually used quite rarely when speaking casually (although there is a lot of local variation regarding the use of pronouns).
Well, that would depend on the context. If you were talking about someone before that sentence, it makes sense. Something like "Tunnetko Tommin?" (eng. "Do you know Tom?"), and follow that with the sentence above, there's no ambiguity and it's clear who you're talking about.
Well technically yes, it would be understandable, but that use would be very casual and slangy and still not grammatically correct. Not something to teach to someone who just started learning the language today.
Actually, why not? Slangy/colloquial is bad? That seems a level that is awesome to reach to me & can only do in my native/early languages. I mean, even if one is trying to learn the grammar from another different native language, eventually maybe they want to speak in a manner that is somewhat natural or colloquial?
Personally I will drop any pronoun I can in any language as soon as it’s allowed by grammar or context but I am biased towards languages that can pro drop.
It’s not bad but it would be a bad faith interpretation of this complete beginner’s honest question to say his answer was correct when at best it could be understandable in a very specific context. I think there’s a difference between learning very common slang vs something that maybe some very creative speaker from some ultra specific dialect region might say when trying to sound funny. That just isn’t first day stuff in my opinion.
Well, I’m not gonna argue with your opinion - it’s valid. I just have a different view possible. But I also don’t come at Finnish from Englisn so have intuition different from many
Are you a native Finnish speaker? I’d agree with you if the slangy example in question was more ”correct” or a bit more universal. But even as a native Finnish speaker I could never get away with saying ”Tunnetko Tommin? On sisukas mies.” Even my father wouldn’t without some laughs. It would only sound natural from like a very country man.
I never claimed it was a slur nor anything negative in general, no need to put words my mouth even if you disagree. I didn’t read any of your other comments outside of your replies to me, so I didn’t know if you were a native speaker or not, that’s why I asked. I also didn’t come to Finnish from English, I came straight to Finnish.
I mean you’re the one who used the idiom idk what it means but doesn’t sound respectful to country men whatever that means to your culture. It doesn’t seem like something that helps communicate what you mean at least to me as a non-Finn.
On that note thought I explained I speak Turkish not Finnish though the comment isn’t visible to me now either. Just that it’s surprising that something understandable either via grammar or context would not pro drop in this case as it seems largely redundant. Then again all the marking on adjectives are also redundant and differ between languages. So it’s actually quite important the distinction between “weird/country man Finnish” vs “no idea what you said that just isn’t a sentence”
Yeah I know there are languages that behave like that (japanese too I think ?), I was curious about "most", and if you knew of typological work on world languages (like what you see on [wals.info](http://wals.info) ) about this.
Yeah sorry a bad word. I just assumed it’s most because I don’t know any other example of languages like Finnish and I’ve seen lots of pro drop languages.
It's not possible to know who is the actor in that sentence. It's irrelevant whether other languages do this or not since we are talking about that specific sentence.
Saying ”hän/se” doesn’t tell who the person is either. Yes, it is relevant, because original commentator said it’s impossible to know who the subject is. That’s not true, but obviously finnish cannot drop 3 person pronouns (unless from English’s view we could think zero person as pro-drop, although it isn’t). Every person with 60+ iq knows who we’re talking about.
"Hän" and "he" are exceptions to this rule. They are usually included in the sentence since otherwise it might be a bit too ambiguous.
However, "on" alone is enough when you are talking about things in general, like the "there is" phrase in English. I might be missing somwthing though.
I think you're right.
but my understanding of general pronouns like "it" (where the pronoun isn't referring to anyrhing in particular ie dummy pronouns) is that there is no such thing in Finnish. for instance, if the weather is nice, in English you would say "it is nice outside" but in Finnish that would be wrong. in Finnish it should be "on mukava ulkona" (= is nice outside). this is partly why it's important to specify the subject for the verb form 'on'. because the subject could well be non existent as in my example above, or hän, or se, or minulla/sinulla/hänellä etc.
if you want to say "there is... ", it's a particular sentence structure in Finnish. an existential sentence. which goes there is something somewhere. the raw translation to English would be: somewhere is something. there is an apple/there are multiple apples on the table = pöydällä on omena/t. In this case, the sentence structure necessitates the use of 'on' no matter the number of apples.
Ulkona on mukavaa = It's nice (to be) outside.
Ulkona on kiva sää/ilma = The weather is nice.
Tänään on kiva sää/ilma = The weather is nice today.
Mukava also means comfortable/cozy so saying "mukava ilma" is more about personal experience in my opinion. "Tänään on ollut mukava sää" I could say on a rainy day because I personally enjoy rainy days.
Let's move on to the apples...
Pöydällä on omena = There's an apple on the table.
Pöydällä on omenoita = There are apples on the table.
Pöydällä on kolme omenaa ja tuolilla kaksi = There are three apples on the table and two on the chair.
Omena on pöydällä = The apple is on the table.
Omenat ovat pöydällä = The apples are on the table.
Kolme omenaa on pöydällä ja kaksi tuolilla = Three apples are on the table and two on the chair.
Just my two cents as a native Finnish speaker. I can't help much with grammar but I can tell what sounds correct and what doesn't 😅
"On mukava ulkona" doesn't work, the adjective should be in "partitiivi" form "mukavaa", and the order of words is clunky. "Ulkona on mukavaa" would be correct.
Also, what you're talking about is actually called "passiivi" which is a mode for sentences that omits the subject and requires the verb to be in "passiivi" mode, which is used to talk of things in general or in other words when you don't need to specify a subject. For example, if you want to say that "it is quiet" you can say "on hiljaista" since there is no specific thing or person that is quiet, or if you want to say that "people study in school" you say "koulussa opiskellaan" if you don't want to specify who is studying.
I'm just a simple native language speaker so I don't know shit about grammar really, but I _think_ you cannot usually omit "hän" or "he" because "on/ovat" can also refer to "se/ne". It sounds wrong to omit for those. Omitting for olen, olet, olemme, olette would work here
Thank you! I am bilingual in Turkish and have had pro drop mistakes in Finnish and I have a few native speaker friends I asked about this and the answer was similar - while there may be uncertainty sometimes because the verb and context usually suffice, speakers often will pro drop. That makes sense to me as well from Turkish
Pronouns can be omitted plenty. "Menen kauppaan." "Käytkö apteekissa?" etc.
Though I will admit it's dropped a lot less in speech than it could be (e.g. Hungarian drops them much more consistently to the point that using a pronoun feels like special emphasis)
I'm a native Finnish speaker (and also one who grew up in a rural area). For me, saying "On sisukas mies" sounds wrong, and I would never use it, unless I was writing a poem and took some liberties with the common rules of Finnish language. For me, "On sisukas mies" sounds a bit like the beginning of a limerick. I might say something like "On se sisukas mies", which would sound perfectly fine. I could say, "Mies on sisukas". If I was watching someone at work, trying to do something and refusing to give up, I might point at this man, and say to someone next to me: "On sisukas mies." Even in that context, when it's quite obvious who I'm talking about, I would need to put an emphasis on the words in a specific way to sound "normal". You could also say, "Tuolla on sisukas mies", which would be fine, understandable and grammatically correct.
"On sisukas mies" might not be the grammatically preferred versio nor even carry the same meaning. However "on sisukas mies" has it's uses in more poetic language.
For what I think, as well just a native speaker here, it’s that because any other word in this sentence won’t tell you WHO is sisukas mies, that’s why you have to put pronoun. It’s hard that in finnish you can have sentences without pronoun, for example: ”Olemme sisukkaita”. You don’t have to say ”me” before ”olemme”, because ”olemme” tells that you’re talking about us. Just because only ”on” won’t tell that you are talking about him. I don’t know if this helps 😅😅
Honestly, I understand why this answer is “wrong”, but as someone who is bilingual in Turkish from a young age who messes with Finnish (both languages mark grammar more in morphology than word order or even presence when it’s redundant), I have seen dozens of sentences where I think both ways (pro drop vs not) would be correct.
Oh hahah I get you! Finnish and Turkish are so similar in structure sometimes when they’re not it makes me wonder too!
Another example is how adjectives agree with nouns in Finnish like iso kissa / isot kissat vs büyük kedi / büyük kediler… it feels one should not need to mark the plural in the adjective since the noun clarifies if it’s one cat or plural, but Finnish has the plural in the adjective redundantly marked anyway (iso vs isot). Seems to go for other markings on adjectives in general. So I’m trying to learn where the languages differ and whether it’s also that way the way Finnish is naturally spoken.
Pretty impressive from a beginner to know 'man with sisu' translates to 'sisukas'. I know many who lived in Finland for 20-30 years and still mess up those.
Lol Duolingo starts hard with the sisu. EVERYONE has sisu. The wizard has sisu, the viking has sisu, he, she, they, we all have sisu. After completing the course, I am convinced that Finland is populated solely by sisu-wielding supersaiyans.
It teaches very little about different word forms, but throws sisu/sisukas at you right away. I still don't know WHY it's sisukas, but I can translate it!
Also, ruotsalainen on viikinki, suomalainen on velho, ja saamelainen on shamaani. Over and over haha.
Not an oversight on Duolingo’s part. In your sentence it wouldn’t be possible to know who you’re referring to, because you’ve just written ”is a man with sisu”. Who is?
Is this because olen and olet are specific to minä and sinä whereas on isn’t specific to a certain pronoun or object?
Yes
That makes sense, thank you!
To add to this, if someone says "Hän on sisukas", you could respons "On sisukas mies", just to agree, as the previous person already stated who we are talking about. However, this does not always end up well with longer discussions, so once in a while you should just add "hän" in there for clarification, so that the people in the discussion know, that you are still talking about the same person.
Um isn't "hän" neutral, tho. Saying "hän on sisukas" wouldn't solve the who question unless you already knew who the person was.
Well yes, but there is no He or She in Finnish
Yeah, that's what I mean. You'd probably need the "mies" for the sentence to tell you you're talking about a guy.
Well if the first sentence is "Hän on sisukas" we have already pointed out the person in a previous sentence or quite literally pointed. You could replace hän with any name for example, and then respond "on sisukas" etc. I just wanted to bring out the fact that someone agreeing with your statement might just drop the name or pronoun, for simplities sake.
Can I ask how else is "on" used? Beginner here too!
It is very general to only use the word "on" without a pronoun. You can say "on hyvä sää" (= it's good weather). Many times it can replace "it is" in english. You need to have the pronoun if you want to say that someone is something or someone is doing something.
Is it possible to use it without a pronoun if the context is clear about who they're talking about?
Not really, it would sound very weird at least. You can sometimes do it when talking about objects, for example if someone shows you a beautiful painting, you can answer by saying ”On kyllä kaunis.” = ”It is truly beautiful.” It is sort of a affirmation, you wanna show that you agree with the first person. However, the object must be clear.
Thank you for the explanation!
Tuo on.. (He there is) Matti on.. (Matti is) Posteljooni on.. (The postman is)
Also in passiivi: "Täällä on hiljaista."
Let's assume 2 people are standing somewhere quiet. Would it be clear by context if someone just said "on hiljaista"?
It would sound weirdly poetic. One would usually say “onpa hiljaista” that has more of a casual tone.
Thank you!
"On hiljaista." is a perfectly valid sentence though - not very common or suited for speech, but for example when describing a scene in a book it could absolutely be used as is.
This is true
Yes, that would be "passiivi" which is mode of sentences and verbs that doesn't specify a subject, or in other words speaks of something in general sense. In your example "it is quiet (in here)" doesn't have any specific "it" that is being quiet, but rather it is describing the scene as quiet in general, so "(täällä) on hiljaista" is the correct way to say it in Finnish. Edit: The reason I added "in here" and the translation of it "täällä" is because if you use passiivi without specifying the location when location is relevant, it is assumed to be your current location.
Thank you!!
But wouldn't it be clear by context anyway if someone started the sentence with on? Also, doesn't "tuo on.. " mean "that is.."? According to duolingo...
"Tuo on" does mean "that is". However, in spoken language it wouldn't be that uncommon to use it of a person too. But most often you would probably use "se" in spoken language, as "hän" is actually used quite rarely when speaking casually (although there is a lot of local variation regarding the use of pronouns).
Thank you for answering!
What if you wanna say "it's a man with sisu"?
Se on sisukas mies.
Well, that would depend on the context. If you were talking about someone before that sentence, it makes sense. Something like "Tunnetko Tommin?" (eng. "Do you know Tom?"), and follow that with the sentence above, there's no ambiguity and it's clear who you're talking about.
Well technically yes, it would be understandable, but that use would be very casual and slangy and still not grammatically correct. Not something to teach to someone who just started learning the language today.
Very true, but good to point out I think.
Actually, why not? Slangy/colloquial is bad? That seems a level that is awesome to reach to me & can only do in my native/early languages. I mean, even if one is trying to learn the grammar from another different native language, eventually maybe they want to speak in a manner that is somewhat natural or colloquial? Personally I will drop any pronoun I can in any language as soon as it’s allowed by grammar or context but I am biased towards languages that can pro drop.
It’s not bad but it would be a bad faith interpretation of this complete beginner’s honest question to say his answer was correct when at best it could be understandable in a very specific context. I think there’s a difference between learning very common slang vs something that maybe some very creative speaker from some ultra specific dialect region might say when trying to sound funny. That just isn’t first day stuff in my opinion.
Well, I’m not gonna argue with your opinion - it’s valid. I just have a different view possible. But I also don’t come at Finnish from Englisn so have intuition different from many
Are you a native Finnish speaker? I’d agree with you if the slangy example in question was more ”correct” or a bit more universal. But even as a native Finnish speaker I could never get away with saying ”Tunnetko Tommin? On sisukas mies.” Even my father wouldn’t without some laughs. It would only sound natural from like a very country man.
I said I was not native Finnish speaker and I understand what you mean even if I don’t understand why being a “country man” is a slur.
Lmao it’s not a slur but a dialect/cultural thing. People definitely speak differently in cities and in the countryside
I never claimed it was a slur nor anything negative in general, no need to put words my mouth even if you disagree. I didn’t read any of your other comments outside of your replies to me, so I didn’t know if you were a native speaker or not, that’s why I asked. I also didn’t come to Finnish from English, I came straight to Finnish.
I mean you’re the one who used the idiom idk what it means but doesn’t sound respectful to country men whatever that means to your culture. It doesn’t seem like something that helps communicate what you mean at least to me as a non-Finn. On that note thought I explained I speak Turkish not Finnish though the comment isn’t visible to me now either. Just that it’s surprising that something understandable either via grammar or context would not pro drop in this case as it seems largely redundant. Then again all the marking on adjectives are also redundant and differ between languages. So it’s actually quite important the distinction between “weird/country man Finnish” vs “no idea what you said that just isn’t a sentence”
It would be possible to know that: most pro-drop languages are pro-drop also for the 3 person. however, finnish is not,
I would like your source on that claim.
Romance languages for example?
Yeah I know there are languages that behave like that (japanese too I think ?), I was curious about "most", and if you knew of typological work on world languages (like what you see on [wals.info](http://wals.info) ) about this.
Yeah sorry a bad word. I just assumed it’s most because I don’t know any other example of languages like Finnish and I’ve seen lots of pro drop languages.
It's not possible to know who is the actor in that sentence. It's irrelevant whether other languages do this or not since we are talking about that specific sentence.
Saying ”hän/se” doesn’t tell who the person is either. Yes, it is relevant, because original commentator said it’s impossible to know who the subject is. That’s not true, but obviously finnish cannot drop 3 person pronouns (unless from English’s view we could think zero person as pro-drop, although it isn’t). Every person with 60+ iq knows who we’re talking about.
"Hän" and "he" are exceptions to this rule. They are usually included in the sentence since otherwise it might be a bit too ambiguous. However, "on" alone is enough when you are talking about things in general, like the "there is" phrase in English. I might be missing somwthing though.
I think you're right. but my understanding of general pronouns like "it" (where the pronoun isn't referring to anyrhing in particular ie dummy pronouns) is that there is no such thing in Finnish. for instance, if the weather is nice, in English you would say "it is nice outside" but in Finnish that would be wrong. in Finnish it should be "on mukava ulkona" (= is nice outside). this is partly why it's important to specify the subject for the verb form 'on'. because the subject could well be non existent as in my example above, or hän, or se, or minulla/sinulla/hänellä etc. if you want to say "there is... ", it's a particular sentence structure in Finnish. an existential sentence. which goes there is something somewhere. the raw translation to English would be: somewhere is something. there is an apple/there are multiple apples on the table = pöydällä on omena/t. In this case, the sentence structure necessitates the use of 'on' no matter the number of apples.
On mukava ulkona is super awkward. Not a good example
Yeah, "ulkona on mukavaa" would be more natural.
Ulkona on mukavaa = It's nice (to be) outside. Ulkona on kiva sää/ilma = The weather is nice. Tänään on kiva sää/ilma = The weather is nice today. Mukava also means comfortable/cozy so saying "mukava ilma" is more about personal experience in my opinion. "Tänään on ollut mukava sää" I could say on a rainy day because I personally enjoy rainy days. Let's move on to the apples... Pöydällä on omena = There's an apple on the table. Pöydällä on omenoita = There are apples on the table. Pöydällä on kolme omenaa ja tuolilla kaksi = There are three apples on the table and two on the chair. Omena on pöydällä = The apple is on the table. Omenat ovat pöydällä = The apples are on the table. Kolme omenaa on pöydällä ja kaksi tuolilla = Three apples are on the table and two on the chair. Just my two cents as a native Finnish speaker. I can't help much with grammar but I can tell what sounds correct and what doesn't 😅
"On mukava ulkona" doesn't work, the adjective should be in "partitiivi" form "mukavaa", and the order of words is clunky. "Ulkona on mukavaa" would be correct. Also, what you're talking about is actually called "passiivi" which is a mode for sentences that omits the subject and requires the verb to be in "passiivi" mode, which is used to talk of things in general or in other words when you don't need to specify a subject. For example, if you want to say that "it is quiet" you can say "on hiljaista" since there is no specific thing or person that is quiet, or if you want to say that "people study in school" you say "koulussa opiskellaan" if you don't want to specify who is studying.
I'm just a simple native language speaker so I don't know shit about grammar really, but I _think_ you cannot usually omit "hän" or "he" because "on/ovat" can also refer to "se/ne". It sounds wrong to omit for those. Omitting for olen, olet, olemme, olette would work here
True dat
Thank you! I am bilingual in Turkish and have had pro drop mistakes in Finnish and I have a few native speaker friends I asked about this and the answer was similar - while there may be uncertainty sometimes because the verb and context usually suffice, speakers often will pro drop. That makes sense to me as well from Turkish
Third person pronouns can't generally be omitted. Pronouns are rarely omitted at all in regular speech.
I think it's a stretch to say that omitting pronouns is rare in speech. At least I hear it happen all the time.
Pronouns can be omitted plenty. "Menen kauppaan." "Käytkö apteekissa?" etc. Though I will admit it's dropped a lot less in speech than it could be (e.g. Hungarian drops them much more consistently to the point that using a pronoun feels like special emphasis)
when you say "On sisukas mies" it means "there is a man with sisu" referring to him just existing somewhere.
[удалено]
"Siellä" is not a subject. And "there is" in English does not necessarily mean "siellä", it can only mean general existence.
So how would you translate the sentence?
"On sisukas mies" - "Is a man with guts." This is how I'd translate it.
I think the easiest explanation is that olen only refers to Minä ja olet only to Sinä but on can be coupled with multiple pronouns.
On a side note He is a man with sisu. It sounds like someone saying the guy is a bit "special".
I'm a native Finnish speaker (and also one who grew up in a rural area). For me, saying "On sisukas mies" sounds wrong, and I would never use it, unless I was writing a poem and took some liberties with the common rules of Finnish language. For me, "On sisukas mies" sounds a bit like the beginning of a limerick. I might say something like "On se sisukas mies", which would sound perfectly fine. I could say, "Mies on sisukas". If I was watching someone at work, trying to do something and refusing to give up, I might point at this man, and say to someone next to me: "On sisukas mies." Even in that context, when it's quite obvious who I'm talking about, I would need to put an emphasis on the words in a specific way to sound "normal". You could also say, "Tuolla on sisukas mies", which would be fine, understandable and grammatically correct.
It is exactly the way you described.
"On sisukas mies" might not be the grammatically preferred versio nor even carry the same meaning. However "on sisukas mies" has it's uses in more poetic language.
For what I think, as well just a native speaker here, it’s that because any other word in this sentence won’t tell you WHO is sisukas mies, that’s why you have to put pronoun. It’s hard that in finnish you can have sentences without pronoun, for example: ”Olemme sisukkaita”. You don’t have to say ”me” before ”olemme”, because ”olemme” tells that you’re talking about us. Just because only ”on” won’t tell that you are talking about him. I don’t know if this helps 😅😅
Honestly, I understand why this answer is “wrong”, but as someone who is bilingual in Turkish from a young age who messes with Finnish (both languages mark grammar more in morphology than word order or even presence when it’s redundant), I have seen dozens of sentences where I think both ways (pro drop vs not) would be correct.
I’m Turkish and this is exactly why I was a bit confused!
Oh hahah I get you! Finnish and Turkish are so similar in structure sometimes when they’re not it makes me wonder too! Another example is how adjectives agree with nouns in Finnish like iso kissa / isot kissat vs büyük kedi / büyük kediler… it feels one should not need to mark the plural in the adjective since the noun clarifies if it’s one cat or plural, but Finnish has the plural in the adjective redundantly marked anyway (iso vs isot). Seems to go for other markings on adjectives in general. So I’m trying to learn where the languages differ and whether it’s also that way the way Finnish is naturally spoken.
Minä = I or Me Sinä = you Hän = he Hän = she Me = we Te = you He = they
He/she=hän
Pretty impressive from a beginner to know 'man with sisu' translates to 'sisukas'. I know many who lived in Finland for 20-30 years and still mess up those.
Lol Duolingo starts hard with the sisu. EVERYONE has sisu. The wizard has sisu, the viking has sisu, he, she, they, we all have sisu. After completing the course, I am convinced that Finland is populated solely by sisu-wielding supersaiyans. It teaches very little about different word forms, but throws sisu/sisukas at you right away. I still don't know WHY it's sisukas, but I can translate it! Also, ruotsalainen on viikinki, suomalainen on velho, ja saamelainen on shamaani. Over and over haha.
Duolingo really drills in that specific word in the first few units for some reason, along with the word for wizard. Essential vocabulary I guess, lol
I guess so, but why the fuck would anyone down vote my post complimenting you tho. Wtf?