Breakdown of Se, mistä haluan luopua, on turha roina.
olla
to be
se
it / he / she (of a person) / that
haluta
to want
mikä
which (relative pronoun)
Questions & Answers about Se, mistä haluan luopua, on turha roina.
Why does the Finnish sentence start with 'Se, mistä' instead of just translating 'What' directly?
This is a pseudo-cleft sentence, which highlights a specific part of the statement. English uses 'What [clause] is [focus]', but Finnish requires the demonstrative pronoun se in the main clause to act as the structural subject. The relative pronoun mikä then starts the subordinate clause and takes whatever case the verb inside it demands. Here, se is the subject of on, and mistä is tied to the verb luopua.
Why is the relative pronoun in the elative case (mistä) rather than the basic partitive (mitä)?
The case of the relative pronoun is dictated by the verb inside its own subordinate clause. The verb luopua (to give up, to let go of) has a strict grammatical rection: it always requires the thing being relinquished to be in the elative case (-sta/-stä). Therefore, the base pronoun mikä must become mistä.
Since 'roina' (junk) is an uncountable mass noun, shouldn't it be in the partitive case here?
Usually, uncountable mass nouns acting as predicatives (the 'B' in an 'A is B' sentence) take the partitive case. However, there is a special rule: when the subject is a clause or the pronoun se representing a clause, the predicative takes the nominative case. Because turha roina defines the entire concept of the preceding clause, it stays in the nominative.
Are the commas around 'mistä haluan luopua' strictly necessary?