Question 1

Why does the first sentence say ei ollut instead of "ei oli"?

Accepted Answer

In Finnish, you never put the main verb in the past tense after the negative word ei. Instead, to make a negative past tense, you combine the negative verb (ei for he/she/it) with a special form of the main verb called the past participle. For the verb olla (to be), the singular past participle is ollut, which gives us ei ollut (was not).

Question 2

How do we know to use oli in the second sentence?

Accepted Answer

oli is the past tense (imperfect) form of olla for third-person singular subjects (he, she, or it). Because the subject se (it) refers to one single hotel, we use oli to mean "was".

Question 3

Would ollut change if we were talking about multiple hotels?

Accepted Answer

Yes! The past participle ollut is only used for singular subjects. If the subject were plural (like "hotels"), the negative verb would be eivät and the participle would change to olleet. Because there is only one hotel here, we use the singular ei ollut.

Question 4

Do the adjectives kamala and ihana need any special endings because the sentence is negative or in the past tense?

Accepted Answer

No, they stay in their basic dictionary form (the nominative case). The adjectives simply describe a single subject (the hotel). Making the verb past tense (oli) or negative (ei ollut) does not change the case of these descriptive adjectives.

Hotelli ei ollut kamala. Se oli ihana.

Breakdown of Hotelli ei ollut kamala. Se oli ihana.

Questions & Answers about Hotelli ei ollut kamala. Se oli ihana.

Learn Hotelli ei ollut kamala. Se oli ihana and more in Finnish