Palautus ei onnistunut, koska lomake puuttui kokonaan.

The return did not succeed because the form was completely missing.

Breakdown of Palautus ei onnistunut, koska lomake puuttui kokonaan.

• koska: because
• ei: not
• lomake: the form
• onnistua: to succeed
• palautus: the return
• puuttua: to be missing
• kokonaan: completely

Questions & Answers about Palautus ei onnistunut, koska lomake puuttui kokonaan.

What exactly does the word “Palautus” refer to here—return or refund?

It’s a noun meaning “a return” (of an item) or “a refund,” depending on context. In everyday contexts:

• Product being sent back: palautus = a return.
• Money given back: palautus can mean refund, but many prefer hyvitys or maksunpalautus for clarity. It’s derived from the verb palauttaa “to return, to give back.”

Why is it “ei onnistunut” and not “ei onnistui”? How does past-tense negation work?

Finnish uses a special negative verb ei that inflects for person, and the main verb appears in the past participle for past negation. So third person past negative is:

• Affirmative past: onnistui (“succeeded”)
• Negative past: ei onnistunut (“did not succeed”)

Mini-pattern:

• I: en onnistunut
• You (sg): et onnistunut
• He/She/It: ei onnistunut
• We: emme onnistuneet
• You (pl): ette onnistuneet
• They: eivät onnistuneet

Why is there a comma before “koska”?

In Finnish, you place a comma before a subordinate clause starting with koska (“because”) when the main clause comes first:

• Palautus ei onnistunut, koska... If you start with the koska-clause, you put a comma after it:
• Koska lomake puuttui kokonaan, palautus ei onnistunut.

What’s the difference between “koska” and “kun”?

• koska = “because” (introduces a reason).
• kun = “when” (introduces a time context; sometimes “since”). In questions, “when?” is generally milloin, not koska. (Colloquially you might hear koska? as “when?”, but standard usage prefers milloin.)

What does “puuttui” mean exactly, and how does “puuttua” work?

puuttua here means “to be missing; to be lacking.” In this sentence, lomake puuttui = “the form was missing.”

Common patterns:

• X puuttuu = “X is missing.”
• Jostakin puuttuu X = “X is missing from Y” (elative -sta/-stä):
  Lomakkeesta puuttui allekirjoitus. (“The signature was missing from the form.”)
• Joltakulta puuttuu X = “Someone lacks X” (ablative -lta/-ltä):
  Minulta puuttuu kuitti. (“I’m missing the receipt.”)

Note: puuttua can also mean “to intervene” with johonkin (illative): Hän puuttui asiaan.

Why isn’t there a case ending like “lomakkeesta” here?

Because the sentence states that the form itself was missing, so the form is the subject: Lomake puuttui (“The form was missing”).
You use -sta/-stä (elative) when something is missing from something else:
Lomakkeesta puuttui liite (“An attachment was missing from the form”). Here, the form isn’t missing; an attachment is.

What’s the nuance of “kokonaan,” and how is it different from “koko”?

• kokonaan is an adverb: “completely/entirely/altogether.” Lomake puuttui kokonaan = “the form was completely missing.”
• koko is an adjective: “whole/entire,” and it modifies a noun: Koko lomake puuttui = “the entire form was missing.”

Both work here and mean almost the same thing; kokonaan emphasizes the completeness of the absence.

Could I say “Palautus epäonnistui” instead of “Palautus ei onnistunut”? Any difference?

Yes. Palautus epäonnistui = “The return failed.”
Both are correct. Nuance:

• ei onnistunut (“didn’t succeed”) is slightly softer or more neutral.
• epäonnistui (“failed”) is a bit stronger or blunter.

Why is the negative verb “ei” in the 3rd person singular here?

Because the subject palautus (“the return”) is third person singular. The negative verb agrees with the subject:

• palautus ei onnistunut (3rd sg) If the subject were “we,” you’d say:
• emme onnistuneet (“we didn’t succeed”).

Why is “lomake” in the nominative, not the partitive?

As the subject of puuttua in this meaning, a countable, fully absent item appears in the nominative: Lomake puuttui.
Partitive often signals an indefinite amount or partialness:

• Rahaa puuttui = “Money was missing” (an unspecified amount).
• Lomakkeita puuttui = “Forms were missing” (some, indefinite number). Here, kokonaan (“entirely”) fits the nominative singular lomake very naturally.

Could I use the present or the perfect instead of the simple past?

Yes, depending on context:

• Present (ongoing/general): Palautus ei onnistu, koska lomake puuttuu kokonaan. (“The return doesn’t succeed because the form is missing.”)
• Present perfect (result still relevant): Palautus ei ole onnistunut, koska lomake on puuttunut kokonaan. (“The return has not succeeded, because the form has been completely missing.”) The original past (ei onnistunut / puuttui) narrates a completed past event.

Can I change the word order?

Yes. Two common variants:

• Palautus ei onnistunut, koska lomake puuttui kokonaan.
• Koska lomake puuttui kokonaan, palautus ei onnistunut. Both are natural. Keep kokonaan near the verb or verb phrase it modifies: puuttui kokonaan is the standard placement.

Could I use “sillä” instead of “koska”?

Sometimes. sillä is a coordinating conjunction meaning “for,” giving a justification or explanation, and it’s more formal/written. Punctuation differs:

• Palautus ei onnistunut, sillä lomake puuttui kokonaan. With sillä, you’re linking two main clauses; with koska, you create a subordinate reason clause. In neutral speech, koska is more common.

Any pronunciation tips for tricky parts like “puuttui” and “kokonaan”?

• Finnish stresses the first syllable: PA-lautus ei on-NIS-tu-nut, KOS-ka LO-ma-ke PUUT-tui ko-ko-NAAN.
• Double vowels are long: uu in puuttui, aa in kokonaan.
• Double consonants are long: tt in puuttui; keep it geminated. Clear length distinctions (short vs long) are important for meaning and natural rhythm.