Questions & Answers about Melusta on paljon haittaa naapureille.
Since this lesson is about causal postpositions, could we say melun vuoksi on paljon haittaa instead of using melusta?
You would be understood, but native speakers prefer the elative case (melusta) here. The expression olla haittaa (to be a harm or disadvantage) has a strong grammatical rule (rection) demanding the elative case for the source of the harm. It translates literally as 'From the noise is a lot of harm.'
How does this sentence translate to causes when the only verb is on (is)?
Finnish often handles abstract 'causing' or 'providing' with an existential structure. The pattern of [Elative source] + on + [Noun] + [Allative recipient] literally means 'From the source is a thing to the recipient.' This is the most natural way to express that something causes harm, joy, or benefit without using an active verb.
Why is the word for harm in the partitive case (haittaa)?
The quantifier paljon (a lot) always forces the noun that follows it into the partitive case. The base nominative word is haitta, which becomes haittaa.
If we removed the word paljon, would the sentence still use the partitive haittaa?
Yes! Even without paljon, the word remains in the partitive case: Melusta on haittaa naapureille. When an abstract, uncountable noun acts as the subject of an existential 'there is' sentence, it takes the partitive case.