Learn Hardcore Finnish: Häntä harmittaa, koska puhelu katkeaa joskus. - He/She is annoyed because the call sometimes cuts off.

Häntä harmittaa is one of Finnish’s “feelings constructions,” where the person who feels something is in the partitive case, and the verb is in 3rd person singular:

Häntä harmittaa. = He/she is annoyed / It annoys him/her.

Literally: It annoys him/her (something unspecified is annoying him/her).

If you say hän harmittaa, the grammar changes completely:

Hän harmittaa minua. = He annoys me.

Now hän is the subject (the one causing annoyance), and minua is the object/experiencer. So:

Häntä harmittaa → he/she is annoyed.
Hän harmittaa (jotakuta) → he/she annoys (someone).

What case is häntä, and why is that case used here?

Häntä is the partitive case of hän (he/she).

Stem: hän-
Partitive: häntä

In expressions with verbs of feeling or bodily state, Finnish typically puts the experiencer (the person who feels something) in the partitive:

Minua väsyttää. = I am tired. (It tires me.)
Heitä pelottaa. = They are scared. (It frightens them.)
Häntä harmittaa. = He/she is annoyed. (It annoys him/her.)

So the partitive is required by the verb harmittaa in this construction.

Why is harmittaa in the 3rd person singular? What is the subject?

Verbs like harmittaa, väsyttää, pelottaa usually appear in 3rd person singular and behave a bit like impersonal or “it”-type verbs in English:

Häntä harmittaa.
Minua väsyttää.
Meitä huvittaa.

There is no explicit subject in Finnish here. You can think of it as:

(Se) harmittaa häntä. → (It) annoys him/her.

The invisible se would be the subject in a more “full” structure, but in normal Finnish you just say Häntä harmittaa without the subject pronoun.

Could you also say Hän on harmissaan instead of Häntä harmittaa? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can. Both are grammatically correct and natural, but there’s a nuance difference:

Häntä harmittaa.
- Very common and neutral; focuses on the feeling of annoyance in the moment.
- Literally: “It annoys him/her.”
Hän on harmissaan.
- Slightly more state-like and sometimes a bit softer in tone.
- Literally: “He/she is in a state of annoyance.”

In most everyday contexts they are interchangeable, but häntä harmittaa sounds a little more immediate and colloquial.

Why is there a comma before koska?

In standard Finnish, a subordinate clause introduced by koska (because) is separated from the main clause by a comma, regardless of the order:

Häntä harmittaa, koska puhelu katkeaa joskus.
Koska puhelu katkeaa joskus, häntä harmittaa.

So the comma is there because koska puhelu katkeaa joskus is a subordinate (dependent) clause explaining the reason.

What is the function of koska here, and can I replace it with something like kun or sillä?

Here, koska introduces a reason: because the call sometimes cuts off.

koska = because (clear cause → effect)

You can sometimes replace it with:

sillä = for / because, more explanatory or written style, and it begins its own main clause, so the structure changes:
- Häntä harmittaa, sillä puhelu katkeaa joskus.
kun can mean when or because, depending on context:
- Häntä harmittaa, kun puhelu katkeaa joskus.
  - Can be understood as He/she is annoyed when the call sometimes cuts off or because the call sometimes cuts off. It’s a bit more colloquial/less formal than koska for a causal meaning.

In a clear, neutral “because” sentence, koska is the safest choice.

Why is puhelu in the nominative and not in some other case?

Puhelu is the subject of the verb katkeaa:

puhelu katkeaa = the call breaks / cuts off

Subjects normally appear in the nominative singular (the “dictionary form”) unless there’s some special structure requiring another case. Here nothing special is happening, so puhelu stays in nominative.

What exactly does katkeaa mean, and how is it different from katkaista?

Katkeaa is the intransitive verb:

katketa → katkeaa (3rd person singular present)
Meaning: to break, to get cut off (by itself), to be interrupted.

In this sentence:

puhelu katkeaa = the call gets cut off / drops (by itself, or due to network issues).

Katkaista is the transitive verb:

katkaista puhelu = to cut off / disconnect the call (someone actively does it).

So:

Puhelu katkeaa. = The call disconnects (no agent mentioned).
Hän katkaisee puhelun. = He/she disconnects the call.

Why is the verb katketa in the present tense (katkeaa) if we are talking about something that happens from time to time?

Finnish uses the present tense for:

actions happening now, and
habitual or repeated actions (things that sometimes or often happen).

So:

Puhelu katkeaa joskus.
= The call sometimes cuts off / calls sometimes drop.

English also uses present simple for habits (“The call sometimes drops”), so the usage is parallel. If you wanted to talk about a specific call that already dropped, you’d use past tense:

Puhelu katkesi. = The call cut off.

Does the placement of joskus (sometimes) change the meaning?

Not drastically, but it can slightly shift the focus:

puhelu katkeaa joskus (as in the sentence)
- Most neutral: the call sometimes cuts off.
puhelu joskus katkeaa
- Emphasis moves a little more onto katkeaa; sounds a bit more “spoken” or expressive.
joskus puhelu katkeaa
- Emphasizes “sometimes” at the beginning: Sometimes the call cuts off.

All are understandable; puhelu katkeaa joskus is the most straightforward and neutral in style.

Could I say Häntä harmittaa, kun puhelu katkeaa joskus instead? Is the nuance different?

Yes, you can. Both are correct:

Häntä harmittaa, koska puhelu katkeaa joskus.
- Stresses cause: He/she is annoyed *because the call sometimes cuts off.*
Häntä harmittaa, kun puhelu katkeaa joskus.
- More like: He/she is annoyed *when the call sometimes cuts off.*
- In many contexts it also works as “because,” but kun feels more colloquial and slightly less “logical-cause” than koska.

In everyday speech, kun is very common; in more careful or written language, koska for clear causality is preferred.

Is Häntä harmittaa, koska puhelu katkeaa joskus talking about one person in particular or could it be general, like “one gets annoyed”?

Literally it refers to one specific person:

Häntä = him/her (a particular person known from context).

For a more general “people get annoyed when…”, you would say:

Se harmittaa, kun puhelu katkeaa joskus. = It’s annoying when the call sometimes cuts off.
or
Ihmisiä harmittaa, kun puhelu katkeaa. = People get annoyed when the call cuts off.

So the original sentence is about a particular he/she, not “one/people in general.”

Can I change the word order to Koska puhelu katkeaa joskus, häntä harmittaa? Does that sound natural?

Yes, that is perfectly natural:

Koska puhelu katkeaa joskus, häntä harmittaa.

Putting the reason clause first can slightly highlight the cause (“Because the call sometimes cuts off…”), but the basic meaning stays the same. Both orders are common:

Häntä harmittaa, koska puhelu katkeaa joskus.
Koska puhelu katkeaa joskus, häntä harmittaa.