Breakdown of En ollut sairas, mutta hammas oli kipeä.
olla
to be
mutta
but
ei
no / not (en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät)
sairas
sick
kipeä
sore
hammas
tooth
Questions & Answers about En ollut sairas, mutta hammas oli kipeä.
Why is it en ollut instead of "en oli" for "I was not"?
To form the negative past tense in Finnish, you don't just put the negative verb (en, et, ei, etc.) in front of the regular past tense verb. Instead, you use the negative verb plus the past participle form of the main verb, which usually ends in -nut, -nyt, -lut, or -sut. For the verb olla (to be), that form is ollut.
Does ollut change depending on who is speaking?
No, not for singular subjects! The negative verb en already tells us that "I" am the one who was not sick. If the subject were "you", it would be et ollut, and for "he/she", ei ollut. The word ollut only changes if the subject is plural (like "we" or "they"), where it becomes olleet.
What is the difference between sairas and kipeä?
Both can mean "sick" or "ill", but they are used slightly differently. Sairas is typically used for a person who is generally ill or has a disease. Kipeä often means "sore" or "painful" and is specifically used when a body part hurts, like your hammas (tooth) or head. While a person can be kipeä (feeling ill), a body part cannot be sairas.
Why is kipeä in its basic form and not the partitive case (kipeää)?
When you use the verb olla to describe a singular, countable noun like hammas (a tooth), the describing adjective stays in the basic nominative form (kipeä). You would only use the partitive case (kipeää) if you were describing an uncountable word (like water or soup) or if the subject were plural.
Learn En ollut sairas, mutta hammas oli kipeä and more in Finnish
All course content and exercises are completely free — no paywalls, no trial periods, no signup needed.
- ✓ Practice with interactive exercises
- ✓ Track your progress with spaced repetition
- ✓Learn at your own pace — completely free