Learn Hardcore Finnish: Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle, mutta videopuhelu silti katkesi. - Suddenly he/she hurried to the station, but the video call still cut off.

Äkkiä and yhtäkkiä are very close in meaning.
- Äkkiä = suddenly, quickly, all of a sudden
- Yhtäkkiä = suddenly, all of a sudden
  They could almost always replace each other in this kind of sentence:
- Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle…
- Yhtäkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle…
  Both feel natural.
Nopeasti means “quickly / fast” (more about speed than suddenness):
- Nopeasti hän kiirehti asemalle… = He/she hurried to the station quickly.

So:

Äkkiä / yhtäkkiä focus on the suddenness of the action starting.
Nopeasti focuses on how fast the action is carried out.

Why is the word order “Äkkiä hän kiirehti” and not “Hän kiirehti äkkiä”? Are both correct?

Both orders are grammatically correct; the difference is in emphasis and style.

Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle…
- Puts Äkkiä at the beginning, so the suddenness is highlighted first.
- Feels somewhat narrative or written: “Suddenly, he/she hurried to the station…”
Hän kiirehti äkkiä asemalle…
- More neutral, similar to English SVO order.
- The adverb äkkiä is just describing how he/she hurried.

In Finnish, starting a sentence with an adverb (like Äkkiä) is very common to set the scene or mood. It doesn’t change the basic meaning, but it changes the focus a bit.

What exactly is “kiirehti”? Which verb is it, and what tense is it in?

Kiirehti is the past tense (3rd person singular) form of the verb kiirehtiä.

Infinitive (dictionary form): kiirehtiä = to hurry, to rush
Present tense:
- minä kiirehdin – I hurry
- hän kiirehtii – he/she hurries
Past tense:
- minä kiirehdin – I hurried
- hän kiirehti – he/she hurried

So “hän kiirehti” = “he/she hurried” or “he/she rushed.”

Why is it “asemalle” and not “asemaan” or “asemalleen”? What is that -lle ending doing?

Asemalle is asema (station) in the allative case.

The allative (-lle) often means “onto / to (a surface/place)” or “towards.”
Asemalle = “to the station” (movement towards/leads to the station).

Comparisons:

asema – station (basic form)
asemalle – to the station (allative)
asemalta – from the station (ablative)
asemalla – at / on the station (adessive, “at the station”)
asemaan – illative (more like “into the station” as an interior space; used less naturally here)
asemalleen – “to his/her own station” (possessive suffix -en = his/her)

In this context, asemalle is the standard way to say “to the station” for someone going there.

There’s no word for “the” before “station” in Finnish. How do I know it means “the station” and not “a station”?

Finnish does not have articles (no “a/an” or “the”).

Instead, definiteness is understood from:

Context and shared knowledge
Whether this is a new thing being mentioned or something already known in the situation

In practice:

Hän kiirehti asemalle can be:
- “He/she hurried to the station” (the usual translation)
- or “He/she hurried to a station”
  depending on the context.

English forces you to choose a/the, but Finnish leaves it to context.

Why is there a comma before “mutta” in “…, mutta videopuhelu silti katkesi.”?

Mutta means “but.”

In Finnish, when mutta joins two independent clauses, a comma is normally used before it, just like in English:

Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle, mutta videopuhelu silti katkesi.
- Clause 1: Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle.
- Clause 2: videopuhelu silti katkesi.

Rule of thumb:

If mutta connects two full sentences (each with its own verb and subject), use a comma:
- Halusin jäädä, mutta minun oli mentävä.
If it’s connecting just words or smaller phrases, it may not need a comma:
- Hän on kiltti mutta ujo. (one clause, two adjectives)

What does “silti” mean here, and why is it placed between “videopuhelu” and “katkesi”?

Silti means “still, nevertheless, even so”.

So “…mutta videopuhelu silti katkesi.” =
“but the video call still got cut off / disconnected.”

About the position:

Videopuhelu silti katkesi
- More common, neutral word order.
- Subject (videopuhelu) comes first, then the adverb (silti), then verb (katkesi).

You could also see:

…mutta silti videopuhelu katkesi.
- Moves silti closer to the start of the clause, emphasising the contrast: “but still, the video call disconnected.”

Both are grammatical. Moving silti changes nuance and emphasis, not the basic meaning.

What is “katkesi” exactly? Is it passive, and what is the dictionary form?

Katkesi is not passive; it’s the past tense, 3rd person singular of katketa.

Infinitive: katketa = to be cut off, to break, to disconnect (intransitive)
Past tense:
- Se katkesi. = It disconnected / was cut off / broke.

This verb is intransitive: it describes something happening to the subject on its own.

Compare:

katketa (intransitive) – “to come apart / to be cut off”
- Videopuhelu katkesi. = The video call got cut off.
katkaista (transitive) – “to cut, to break off (something)”
- Hän katkaisi videopuhelun. = He/she cut off the video call.

So here, katkesi suggests the call disconnected by itself (network issue, etc.), not that someone actively ended it.

Can I say “mutta se videopuhelu silti katkesi”? Why is there no “se” in the original?

You can say “mutta se videopuhelu silti katkesi”, but the “se” is not necessary here.

Videopuhelu silti katkesi already has a clear subject, videopuhelu.
Finnish does not normally repeat a pronoun if the noun itself is present and unambiguous.

Adding se:

mutta se videopuhelu silti katkesi
can give a slight nuance of “that video call” (for emphasis or contrast), but it may also sound a bit heavier or more spoken-like.

The original:

mutta videopuhelu silti katkesi.
is the normal, clean written form: “but the video call still disconnected.”

Could the subject “hän” be left out, like “Äkkiä kiirehti asemalle”?

It could be left out, but that’s usually done only when the subject is extremely clear from context and there is no risk of confusion.

Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle…
- Standard and clear: “Suddenly, he/she hurried to the station.”
Äkkiä kiirehti asemalle…
- Grammatically possible, but without context it sounds incomplete: “Suddenly (someone) hurried to the station…”

In Finnish, you can drop minä, sinä etc. very often:

(Minä) menen. = I’m going. But with hän, you’re more likely to keep it unless the subject was just mentioned and is obviously the same.

So in isolation, Äkkiä hän kiirehti asemalle is better and clearer than leaving hän out.

Is “videopuhelu” always one word? How is it formed?

Yes, videopuhelu is written as one compound word.

It is made of:

video – video
puhelu – (phone) call

Finnish commonly joins elements like this into a single word:

videopuhelu = video call
puhelin (phone) + lasku (bill) → puhelinlasku (phone bill)
juna (train) + asema (station) → juna-asema (often written as one: juna-asema or junaasema in some contexts)

So videopuhelu is treated as one noun:
videopuhelu silti katkesi = “the video call still disconnected.”