Breakdown of Tulot olivat kohtuulliset panostukseen nähden.
olla
to be
tulo
income
nähden
relative to
kohtuullinen
reasonable
Questions & Answers about Tulot olivat kohtuulliset panostukseen nähden.
Why does nähden require the illative case (panostukseen)?
The postposition nähden translates to "relative to", "compared to", or "in view of". It is an exception to the rule that postpositions usually take the genitive case; nähden always requires the preceding noun to be in the illative case (the "into" case, here ending in -een). You can think of it literally as "looking into [something]".
Why is "income" plural (tulot) in Finnish when it's usually singular in English?
In Finnish, a person's or company's regular earnings or finances are usually expressed in the plural, like tulot (income) or menot (expenses). While the singular tulo exists (meaning "arrival" or a single instance of revenue), the plural is the standard way to talk about general income.
Since tulot is plural, why is the adjective kohtuulliset in the nominative plural instead of the partitive plural (kohtuullisia)?
When the subject is a plural noun representing a specific, whole entity or a defined totality—like a person's total income (tulot)—the predicative adjective usually takes the nominative plural (kohtuulliset). If we were talking about an undefined, uncountable amount of something, we would use the partitive plural.
How is the word panostukseen formed from its dictionary form?