Breakdown of Se kannattaa, koska säästämme rahaa.
koska
because
se
it
me
we
säästää
to save
raha
the money
kannattaa
to be worth it
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Se kannattaa, koska säästämme rahaa.
What exactly does the verb kannattaa mean in this sentence?
Here kannattaa means “to be worth it / to pay off / to be profitable.” It’s intransitive in this sense: it takes a subject (Se = it) but no object. Note that kannattaa also has another, transitive meaning “to support” (e.g., Kannatan ehdotusta = I support the proposal), which is unrelated to the “worth it” meaning.
Why is it Se kannattaa instead of something like Se on sen arvoista?
Both are idiomatic, but they’re used a bit differently:
- Se kannattaa is short, neutral, and often used for cost–benefit or practical pay-off.
- Se on sen arvoista is “it’s worth it” in a more general/value sense. In many everyday contexts, Se kannattaa is the default choice for “it pays off.”
Why is there a comma before koska?
In Finnish, a comma is placed before most subordinate clauses, including ones introduced by koska (because). So you write: Se kannattaa, koska … The comma is required even if English wouldn’t use one.
Can I put the koska-clause first?
Yes: Koska säästämme rahaa, se kannattaa. You still keep the comma between the clauses.
Why is rahaa in the partitive case?
Raha (money) behaves like a mass noun. With verbs like säästää (to save), the partitive (rahaa) expresses an indefinite amount: “save some money / money in general.” If you refer to a specific, total amount/funds, you can use a total object: säästämme rahat (“we will keep/save the (specific) money/funds”).
Could I say säästämme rahan instead of rahaa?
It’s possible but less common; rahan (genitive singular as a total object) usually implies a specific, identified sum (“that money”). In many real-life contexts Finns prefer rahat (plural) for “the funds”: säästämme rahat.
Why is there no me in säästämme?
Finnish marks the person on the verb. The ending -mme already means “we,” so me is optional: (Me) säästämme. Adding me emphasizes or contrasts the subject (we as opposed to others).
Is it okay to say koska me säästämme rahaa?
Yes. me adds emphasis to the subject. Without me, it’s still clearly “we” because of -mme.
Could I drop se and just say Kannattaa, koska säästämme rahaa?
In casual speech, yes—people often use Kannattaa! as a short judgement (“Worth it!”). In a full sentence, Se kannattaa is the standard form and is safer in writing.
What’s the difference between Se kannattaa and Minun kannattaa [tehdä jotain]?
Two distinct patterns:
- Se kannattaa = “It is worth it / it pays off.” Subject in nominative (se).
- Minun kannattaa lähteä = “It’s advisable for me to leave / I should leave.” Here the “logical subject” (minun) is in the genitive before an infinitive. Don’t mix these.
Does Finnish use a special future tense here?
No. Finnish typically uses the present for future meaning. Se kannattaa, koska säästämme rahaa can mean “It will be worth it, because we will save money,” depending on context. You can add time adverbs if needed (e.g., huomenna).
Can I use sillä instead of koska?
Yes: Se kannattaa, sillä säästämme rahaa. Sillä is a bit more formal/literary and works like “for/because.” Koska is the everyday default.
How are the doubles and long vowels pronounced in kannattaa and säästämme?
- Double consonants (nn, tt, mm) are held longer than single ones.
- ää is a long front vowel; make it clearly longer than ä. So: kan-nat-taa; sääs-täm-me (with long ää and a long mm).
Is there a more explicitly “profitable” way to say this?
You can use the adjective kannattava (profitable): Se on kannattavaa toimintaa (That is profitable activity). For a bare “It’s profitable,” Finnish usually prefers Se kannattaa rather than Se on kannattavaa by itself.