Breakdown of Kosto teki paronin sokeaksi. Hän teloitti vihollisen.
hän
he / she
tehdä
to do
vihollinen
enemy
sokea
blind
Questions & Answers about Kosto teki paronin sokeaksi. Hän teloitti vihollisen.
If the baron was the object of the first sentence, why does the second sentence use hän instead of tämä?
You've likely learned that hän usually refers to the subject of the previous sentence, while tämä refers to the object (or the last mentioned person). However, the subject of the first sentence here is kosto (revenge), which is an abstract concept, not a human. Since paronin (the baron) is the only human in the previous sentence, hän defaults to him without any ambiguity. If the first subject had been a person (e.g., "The king made the baron blind"), you would have needed tämä to refer back to the baron.
Why is the word for blind (sokea) in the translative case (sokeaksi)?
The translative case (ending in -ksi) is used to express a change of state or a transition into a new role. When using the verb tehdä (to make/do) to express that someone is forced into a new condition, the result must be in the translative. Teki paronin sokeaksi literally translates to "made the baron into a blind person."
Why do both paronin and vihollisen end in -n?
They are both total objects of their respective sentences. In Finnish, when a complete action targets an entire object, the object takes the genitive-accusative case (ending in -n). The revenge completely changed the baron's state, and the execution of the enemy was a finished, conclusive act.
Is it normal in Finnish for an abstract noun like to be the subject of the verb ?