Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.
Start learning Finnish now
Questions & Answers about Sinun ei pidä juosta, jos kengät ovat märät.
Why is the subject pronoun in genitive form sinun placed before the negative auxiliary ei instead of using sinä?
In the ei pidä construction, ei is a negative auxiliary that does not conjugate for person. To show who should not do something, Finnish uses the genitive form of the pronoun (sinun) before ei. You never say sinä ei pidä because ei replaces the person-marked verb. If you wanted a person-conjugated negative verb, you would use et (second-person singular) as in et saa juosta.
How does the ei pidä + infinitive construction work in Finnish?
The pattern is:
• [genitive subject] + ei + pidä + [verb in first infinitive]
It expresses that something is inadvisable or “should not” be done. The verb after pidä always stays in its basic form (first infinitive) and never takes personal endings.
Why is the verb juosta in its base form instead of a conjugated form like juokset?
After pidä in the ei pidä construction, the verb must be the first infinitive (basic dictionary form). You never conjugate it here, so juosta remains unchanged. Forms like juokset or juoksemassa are not used in this pattern.
What nuance does ei pidä carry compared to ei saa or English “should not”/“must not”?
Ei pidä means “it’s not advisable” or “you shouldn’t” – less strict than prohibition.
• Ei saa = “you may not” or “must not” (strong prohibition)
• Ei kannata = “it’s not worth/advisable to” (practical advice)
So Sinun ei pidä juosta is a mild recommendation: “You shouldn’t run…”.
Why is there a comma before jos? Is it necessary?
A comma commonly separates a main clause from a subordinate clause introduced by jos (“if”). In short sentences it is optional, but including it improves clarity, especially in writing.
Why is the condition expressed as a full clause jos kengät ovat märät instead of just märät kengät?
To express “if the shoes are wet,” you need a complete conditional clause with its own verb (ovat). Märät kengät is only a noun phrase (“wet shoes”) and cannot stand alone as a condition. If you prefer a non-clausal form, you could say Sinun ei pidä juosta märillä kengillä, but that changes the structure.
Why is kengät in the nominative case in jos kengät ovat märät? Shouldn’t it be partitive or some other case?
Inside the subordinate clause, kengät is the grammatical subject of the verb ovat, so it appears in the nominative plural. Other cases like partitive or adessive would serve different grammatical functions (object or locative), not a simple subject.
When should you use kun instead of jos in conditional clauses?
Use jos for hypothetical or uncertain situations (“if”). Use kun for events you assume will happen or happen regularly (“when”). Here the speaker doesn’t know whether the shoes are wet, so jos is correct.
Could you use an imperative form instead, like Älä juokse, jos kengät ovat märät?
Yes. Älä juokse is the negative imperative (“don’t run”). It addresses the listener directly and is more of a command than the advisory ei pidä. So Älä juokse, jos kengät ovat märät is perfectly natural for “Don’t run if your shoes are wet.”
Are there other ways to express the same idea in Finnish?
Yes. Some alternatives:
• Et saa juosta, jos kengät ovat märät (“you must not run…” – stronger prohibition)
• Ei kannata juosta, jos kengät ovat märät (“it’s not advisable to run…”)
• Sinun ei kannata juosta märillä kengillä (using adessive case)
• Älä juokse, jos kengät ovat märät (imperative)
