Matkakulut olivat suuret, mutta bensaraha ei ollut ongelma.

Questions & Answers about Matkakulut olivat suuret, mutta bensaraha ei ollut ongelma.

Why is the plural adjective suuret in the nominative rather than the partitive plural (suuria)?
The subject, matkakulut (travel expenses), refers to a specific, defined set of countable things here. When the subject is a plural countable noun and you are describing the whole group, the subject complement adjective matches it in the nominative plural (suuret).
Why isn't ongelma in the partitive case (ongelmaa), since the second clause is negative (ei ollut)?
It is a common trap to think everything becomes partitive in a negative sentence! The rule that 'negative means partitive' applies to objects. However, ongelma is a subject complement describing the subject (bensaraha). For singular, countable nouns acting as subject complements, the nominative case is used even in negative sentences.
How does the negation in the past tense work for ei ollut?
To form the negative past tense, you use the conjugated negative verb (ei) followed by the active past participle of the main verb (ollut). Because bensaraha is singular, we use ei ollut. If it had been plural, it would be eivät olleet.
Bensaraha uses the colloquial word bensa (gas/petrol). Is it common to use colloquial roots in compound nouns like this?
Yes, it is very common! Even in standard written Finnish, widely accepted colloquial roots like bensa (from the formal bensiini) frequently form standard compound words like bensaraha (gas money) or bensa-asema (gas station).

Learn Matkakulut olivat suuret, mutta bensaraha ei ollut ongelma 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