Breakdown of Lääkärin mukaan allergia ärsyttää ihoa vain vähän.
vain
only
lääkäri
the doctor
iho
the skin
allergia
the allergy
mukaan
according to
ärsyttää
to irritate
vähän
a little
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Lääkärin mukaan allergia ärsyttää ihoa vain vähän.
Why is lääkärin in that form, and what is mukaan?
- mukaan is a postposition meaning roughly “according to.” Postpositions in Finnish usually take their complement in the genitive.
- lääkäri (doctor) → lääkärin (genitive singular).
- So Lääkärin mukaan = according to the doctor.
- Punctuation tip: no comma after an initial Lääkärin mukaan in standard Finnish.
Could I use Lääkärin mielestä instead of Lääkärin mukaan?
- Lääkärin mukaan is neutral “according to (as a source/report).”
- Lääkärin mielestä is “in the doctor’s opinion,” highlighting subjectivity.
- They often overlap, but with facts or reported findings, mukaan is the safer, more neutral choice.
Why is ihoa in the partitive instead of iho or ihon?
- ihoa is the partitive singular of iho (skin).
- Partitive is used here because:
- The effect is partial/degree-like, not a complete, bounded result.
- Many sensation/affect verbs like ärsyttää prefer the partitive for what is affected.
- The phrase vain vähän reinforces the “to a small extent” reading.
- Using ihon would suggest a total, bounded effect (unusual here), e.g., a resultative reading like something “burned the skin off,” which is not intended.
Does vain vähän itself force the partitive on ihoa?
- Not by itself. You would still say Allergia ärsyttää ihoa even without vain vähän.
- But vain vähän adds an explicit degree/partiality that strongly aligns with the partitive.
Where can I place vain vähän in the sentence?
- Natural placements:
- Allergia ärsyttää ihoa vain vähän. (neutral)
- Allergia ärsyttää vain vähän ihoa. (slightly more focus on the degree)
- Keep vain right next to vähän so it modifies “a little,” not another word.
- Be careful: Allergia ärsyttää vain ihoa means “only the skin (and nothing else) is irritated,” which is a different meaning.
What’s the difference between ärsyttää and ärtyä?
- ärsyttää = transitive “to irritate (something).” Example: Allergia ärsyttää ihoa.
- ärtyä = intransitive “to become irritated.” Example: Iho ärtyy allergiasta (the skin becomes irritated from the allergy).
- So you can express either the cause acting on something (transitive) or the state change of the skin (intransitive).
Is ärsyttää also used for “annoy” in the emotional sense?
- Yes. Example: Minua ärsyttää tämä (This annoys me). The experiencer (minua) is in the partitive.
- Physical irritation uses the same verb: Tämä saippua ärsyttää ihoa (This soap irritates the skin).
What tense/form is ärsyttää here?
- It’s the present indicative, 3rd person singular, agreeing with the singular subject allergia.
- Basic paradigm: present ärsyttää, past ärsytti, negative present ei ärsytä.
Why aren’t there any articles for allergia or ihoa?
- Finnish has no articles. Definiteness/indefiniteness is inferred from context.
- If you need to be specific: tämä allergia (this allergy), potilaan iho (the patient’s skin), etc.
- With possession in the partitive: ihoani (my skin), hänen ihoaan (his/her skin).
Can I move Lääkärin mukaan to the end?
- Yes: Allergia ärsyttää ihoa vain vähän, lääkärin mukaan.
- This order states the claim first and then attributes the source.
Are there synonyms for vain vähän?
- Common alternatives: hieman, hiukan, vain vähän, vain hieman (a bit, only a bit).
- ainoastaan and pelkästään can also mean “only,” but vain is the most neutral and frequent.
How would the sentence change in the plural (allergies)?
- Lääkärin mukaan allergiat ärsyttävät ihoa vain vähän.
- allergiat (plural subject), ärsyttävät (3rd person plural verb).
- ihoa stays partitive singular because it’s still “skin” in general.