Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.

I don't have time or money.

Breakdown of Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.

• minä: I
• olla: to be
• aika: the time
• ei: not
• raha: the money
• eikä: and not

Questions & Answers about Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.

Why is it Minulla and not minä?

Finnish expresses possession with the adessive case (-lla/-llä) plus the verb olla: literally “on me there is…”. So:

• Minulla on kirja. = I have a book.
• Minulla ei ole kirjaa. = I don’t have a book.

Subject pronouns like minä aren’t used for “have” in Finnish; the possessor takes the adessive: minulla, sinulla, hänellä, meillä, teillä, heillä.

Why is it ei ole and not en ole?

This is an existential/possessive clause. The verb behaves as impersonal 3rd person singular: on in the affirmative, ei ole in the negative, regardless of who the possessor is:

• Minulla on… / Minulla ei ole… Contrast with predicative sentences where the subject is “I”:
• En ole väsynyt. = I am not tired. Here en agrees with minä, but in possession you use ei ole.

What case are aikaa and rahaa, and why?

They are in the partitive singular. Two reasons align here:

• Negation typically takes a partitive object: Minulla ei ole autoa.
• These are mass nouns (time, money), which are often partitive for an indefinite amount even in affirmatives: Minulla on vettä / Minulla on aikaa.

Could I use nominative (aika, raha) here?

No, not in this negative possessive. Negation requires partitive: aikaa, rahaa. In the affirmative you might see nominative with countable, definite items (Minulla on auto), but with mass nouns and/or indefinite quantity, partitive is natural even in the affirmative (Minulla on aikaa ja rahaa).

What does eikä mean, and why not ja ei or tai?

Eikä means “nor/and not,” and it’s the standard way to coordinate additional negative items. Ja ei is nonstandard/colloquial and avoided in writing. Tai (“or”) can appear under negation, but eikä is the clearest way to express “neither… nor”:

• Best: Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.
• Colloquial but discouraged: Minulla ei ole aikaa ja ei rahaa.
• Possible but style/meaning can feel weaker or ambiguous: Minulla ei ole aikaa tai rahaa.

Do I need to repeat ei or ole after eikä?

No. The second item shares the same negative verb:

• Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa. If you coordinate full clauses, you can repeat elements:
• Hänellä ei ole aikaa, eikä hänellä ole rahaa. (full clauses, more contrastive)

Should I add the clitic -kaan/-kään on the second item (e.g., rahaakaan)?

It’s optional and adds “either” emphasis:

• Neutral: Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.
• Emphatic: Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaakaan. (= “…nor money either.”)

Is Minulla ei ole aikaa tai rahaa acceptable?

It’s heard and usually understood as “I have neither time nor money,” but it can feel less precise. Eikä is the unambiguous, recommended choice for “neither… nor.”

Can I change the word order for emphasis, like Ei minulla ole aikaa eikä rahaa?

Yes. Fronting ei or minulla changes focus:

• Neutral: Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.
• Emphatic/on the possessor: Ei minulla ole aikaa eikä rahaa. (“I, of all people, don’t have…”)

Can I omit ole and say Minulla ei aikaa?

No. In negative clauses, Finnish uses the negative auxiliary ei plus the connegative main verb form (ole for olla). You need both: ei ole.

Can I drop Minulla and just say Ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa?

Yes. That’s an impersonal/existential statement: “There isn’t time or money (for it).” Context supplies whose lack it is. It’s common in speech and headlines.

Do I need a comma before eikä here?

No. You are linking two objects in the same clause, so no comma:

• Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa. Use a comma when linking independent clauses:
• Hän ei tullut, eikä soittanut.

How do I say the positive version?

• Indefinite amounts (mass nouns): Minulla on aikaa ja rahaa.
• Strongly both: Minulla on sekä aikaa että rahaa. Note that with mass nouns, partitive (aikaa, rahaa) is natural even in the affirmative.

What’s the literal idea behind this structure?

Literally: “On me there is not time nor money.” The possessor is marked with adessive (-lla/-llä), and the thing possessed is the grammatical “existential” element.

How is it pronounced?

Rough guide: [MI-nul-la ei O-le AI-kaa ei-kä RA-haa]

• Stress on the first syllable of each word.
• Double letters are long: ll, aa.
• ä is like the “a” in “cat.”

Why not Minun ei ole…? Isn’t minun “my”?

Minun is the genitive (“my”), but possession with olla uses adessive (minulla). Minun on exists in a different structure expressing obligation/necessity: Minun on mentävä (“I must go”). For “have,” use Minulla on / Minulla ei ole.

Should the verb agree in number with two items? Why not eivät ole?

No. In possessive/existential clauses the verb is the impersonal 3rd singular: on / ei ole, regardless of how many things are listed:

• Minulla on koira ja kissa.
• Minulla ei ole aikaa eikä rahaa.