Log inSign up

Suola on loppu, joten en mausta lisää.

Suola on loppu, joten en mausta lisää.
The salt is finished, so I will not season more.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Suola on loppu, joten en mausta lisää.

What does the part Suola on loppu literally mean, and is it idiomatic?
  • Literally: Salt is finished/out.
  • Idiomatically it means we’re out of salt / the salt has run out. This is a very common and natural way to say it in Finnish.
  • Here loppu functions as a predicative adjective meaning “finished, out (of stock).”
How is Suola on loppu different from Suola loppui and Suola on loppunut?
  • Suola on loppu: a state right now — “the salt is out.”
  • Suola loppui: past event — “the salt ran out.”
  • Suola on loppunut: present perfect — “the salt has run out (by now).” Focuses on the recent completion of the event rather than the state.
What about Suola on lopussa — can I say that too?
  • Yes. Suola on lopussa often implies it’s nearly gone or running low, though it can also mean out in some contexts.
  • Subtle nuance:
    • on loppu = totally out.
    • on lopussa = at the end/near the end; “running out.”
Why is there a comma before joten?
  • Joten (“so, therefore”) links two independent clauses. Finnish punctuation normally puts a comma between such clauses: Suola on loppu, joten…
  • You could also flip to a causal clause: En mausta lisää, koska suola on loppu. (Comma also used before koska-clauses.)
What exactly does joten mean compared with koska, siksi, and niinpä?
  • joten = “so/therefore” (result). Example: State → Result.
  • koska = “because” (cause). Example: Result → Cause.
  • siksi = “for that reason,” an adverb; usually sentence-initial: Siksi en mausta lisää.
  • niinpä = “so/therefore,” often a bit more formal or narrative: Niinpä en mausta lisää.
In en mausta, why is the verb form mausta, not maustan or maustaa?
  • Finnish negation uses a negative auxiliary that conjugates: en/et/ei/emme/ette/eivät.
  • The main verb goes to a special “connegative” form (no personal ending). So:
    • Affirmative: maustan (I season).
    • Negative: en mausta (I don’t season / I won’t season).
  • So mausta here is not an infinitive; it’s the connegative present of maustaa.
Isn’t mausta also the imperative “Season!”? How do I tell the difference?
  • Yes, mausta! is also the 2nd person singular imperative.
  • You tell by context:
    • With a negative auxiliary: en mausta = “I do not season.”
    • With an exclamation or command intonation and no subject/negative: Mausta! = “Season!”
Does en mausta mean “I’m not seasoning (now)” or “I won’t season (in the future)”?
  • Finnish present can cover both present and (near) future. Here, context gives the future-like reading: “I won’t season any more.”
  • If you want to stress intention, you can say En aio maustaa lisää (“I don’t intend to add more seasoning.”).
What does lisää do here? Is it “more,” and where would it go with a noun?
  • Lisää means “more/additional.”
  • As an adverb: En mausta lisää = “I won’t season any more.”
  • As a quantifier before a noun (the noun in partitive): lisää suolaa = “more salt.” Example: En lisää suolaa (“I won’t add more salt”).
How does lisää differ from enemmän/enempää?
  • enemmän = “more” (comparative of paljon) in affirmative contexts: Maustan enemmän (“I season more”).
  • enempää is the usual negative counterpart: En mausta enempää (“I won’t season any more”).
  • lisää = “additional(ly), extra,” works in both positive and negative: En halua lisää suolaa.
  • In this sentence, lisää is natural; enempää would also fit: … joten en mausta enempää.
Is maustaa transitive? What are its typical complements?
  • Yes, typically transitive. Common patterns:
    • Season a food with an ingredient: Maustan keittoa suolalla (“I season the soup with salt”). The ingredient is often in adessive: -lla/-llä.
    • Add an ingredient to something: use lisätä
      • partitive of the ingredient + illative/allative for the target: Lisään suolaa keittoon (“I add salt to the soup”).
  • In En mausta lisää, the object is omitted because it’s obvious from context (e.g., the dish being cooked).
Could I say En mausta enää instead of En mausta lisää?
  • Yes. enää in negatives = “any longer/any more.”
  • Nuance:
    • En mausta lisää = I won’t add an additional amount (extra seasoning).
    • En mausta enää = I won’t continue seasoning any longer (no further seasoning).
  • In many contexts they’re interchangeable.
Where are the English articles (“the salt”)? Why is it just Suola?
  • Finnish has no articles. Definiteness is inferred from context.
  • Suola here naturally means “the salt (we’re using/have at home),” not salt in general.
Could I rephrase the sentence with the cause first?
  • Yes:
    • Koska suola on loppu, en mausta lisää.
    • Or with an adverb: Suola on loppu. Siksi en mausta lisää.
Is there a more specific way to say I won’t add more salt?
  • Yes: Suola on loppu, joten en lisää suolaa.
  • Or specifying the dish: … joten en mausta keittoa lisää / … joten en lisää suolaa keittoon.
Is there a colloquial alternative to Suola on loppu?
  • In spoken Finnish, the verb olla is often dropped: Suola loppu.
  • You’ll see/hear this on notes or in casual speech; it’s informal.
Any common mix-ups I should avoid with maustaa?
  • Don’t confuse maustaa (to season) with maistaa (to taste).
  • Spelling matters: maustaa has u before st; maistaa has i.