Log inSign up

Historian koe oli viime viikolla, ja se oli aika tylsä.

Historian koe oli viime viikolla, ja se oli aika tylsä.
The history exam was last week, and it was quite boring.

Breakdown of Historian koe oli viime viikolla, ja se oli aika tylsä.

olla
to be
ja
and
-llä
on
se
it
viime
last
viikko
the week
koe
the exam
historia
the history
aika
quite
tylsä
boring
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Historian koe oli viime viikolla, ja se oli aika tylsä.

What does Historian koe literally mean, and why is historian in that form?

Historian koe literally means “history’s test / the test of history”.

  • historia = history (basic form)
  • historian = genitive singular of historia (“of history”)
  • koe = test, exam

In Finnish, you often put the first noun in the genitive to show that it defines or belongs to the second noun, like:

  • englannin koe = English test
  • matematiikan opettaja = (the) math teacher

So historian koe = the exam of history → the history exam.

Could you also say historiankoe instead of historian koe?

Yes. Finnish likes compound words, so you can often write:

  • historian koe (two words)
  • historiankoe (one compound word)

Both are understandable. In practice, school-related terms are often written as compound words:

  • englanninkoe – English exam
  • matikan koe / matikankoe – math test

But in everyday writing, many Finns still separate them, especially in informal text. The grammar (cases, etc.) works the same way.

Why is it viime viikolla and not viime viikko?

Viime viikolla literally means “on last week”:

  • viikko = week
  • viikolla = adessive case (“on the week / during the week”)
  • viime = last

Finnish very often uses the adessive -lla/-llä for time expressions meaning “during / at”:

  • kesällä = in the summer
  • yöllä = at night
  • viime viikolla = last week (during last week)

So viime viikko by itself would just be “last week” as a bare noun phrase. In this sentence you need the adessive to make it “(was) last week / was during last week”.

What is the difference between viime viikolla and viime viikon?

  • viime viikolla = “(during) last week” → used as an adverbial of time

    • Historian koe oli viime viikolla.
      = The history exam was last week.

  • viime viikon = genitive (“of last week”) → used to modify another noun

    • viime viikon koe = last week’s exam
    • viime viikon sää = last week’s weather

So:

  • Historian koe oli viime viikolla.
    = The history exam was last week.

  • Viime viikon koe oli vaikea.
    = Last week’s exam was difficult.

Why is there a comma before ja?

Because ja is joining two independent clauses:

  1. Historian koe oli viime viikolla
  2. se oli aika tylsä

Each part could be a full sentence with its own subject and verb. In Finnish, when ja connects two main clauses, you normally put a comma before it:

  • Menin kauppaan, ja ostin maitoa.
    = I went to the store, and I bought milk.

You do not use a comma if ja only connects words or short phrases inside one clause:

  • Ostin maitoa ja leipää. (no comma)

So the comma in ..., ja se oli aika tylsä is correct.

Why is se used instead of repeating koe?

Se is a 3rd-person pronoun that can refer to things, animals, and sometimes people in informal speech. Here it refers back to koe:

  • Historian koe oli viime viikolla, ja se oli aika tylsä.
    = The history exam was last week, and it was quite boring.

Finnish usually avoids repeating the same noun if a pronoun is clear:

  • Elokuva oli hyvä. Se oli hauska.
    = The movie was good. It was funny.

Using se here is completely natural and more fluent than saying ja koe oli aika tylsä.

Does se ever mean “he” or “she”? When would you use hän instead?

In standard, formal Finnish:

  • hän = he / she (for people)
  • se = it (for things)

In spoken Finnish, people often use se to refer to people as well:

  • Hän tuli myöhässä. (formal, written)
  • Se tuli myöhässä. (very common in speech)
    = He/She came late.

In this sentence, se clearly refers to koe (an exam), so it means “it”. If you were writing a formal text about a person, you would choose hän.

Why is the verb oli used twice? Is that the only past tense option?

Oli is the past tense of olla = to be.

Finnish has a simple past (imperfect) that covers both English’s “was” and “has been” type meanings, depending on context. So:

  • Historian koe oli viime viikolla
    = The history exam was last week.
  • se oli aika tylsä
    = it was quite boring.

You typically wouldn’t use a compound tense like on ollut here. Oli is the natural, neutral choice for a completed event in the past.

What does aika tylsä mean exactly? Doesn’t aika mean “time”?

Yes, aika usually means “time”, but in colloquial and standard Finnish it also works as a degree adverb, similar to “quite / rather / pretty” in English.

  • aika tylsä ≈ “quite boring / rather boring / pretty boring”

Other examples:

  • aika hyvä = quite good
  • aika vaikea = rather difficult

So here, aika is not “time” at all. It’s just softening/quantifying the adjective tylsä.

Is there a difference between aika tylsä, melko tylsä, and tosi tylsä?

Yes, they all indicate degree, but with slightly different nuance:

  • aika tylsä
    • very common, informal-neutral
    • ≈ quite / pretty boring
  • melko tylsä
    • a little more formal or “neutral”
    • ≈ rather / fairly boring
  • tosi tylsä
    • informal, strong
    • ≈ really / very boring

So:

  • se oli aika tylsä = it was quite boring
  • se oli melko tylsä = it was fairly boring
  • se oli tosi tylsä = it was really boring

All are grammatically fine; the choice is about style and strength.

Why is tylsä in the basic form and not tylsää?

Tylsä is in the nominative because it is a predicate adjective describing a nominative subject with olla:

  • se (subject, nominative)
  • oli (verb “to be”)
  • aika tylsä (predicate, nominative)

With olla and a definite, clearly delimited subject, the adjective normally matches the subject in nominative:

  • Koe oli vaikea. = The exam was difficult.
  • Elokuva oli hyvä. = The movie was good.

You might see oli tylsää with partitive in other contexts, but that usually suggests something like an indefinite or general state (“it was boring” in a more abstract, less specific sense), for example:

  • Luennolla oli tylsää.
    = It was boring in the lecture / Being in the lecture was boring.

Here, because se refers to a specific exam, tylsä is nominative.

Could the word order be Viime viikolla oli historian koe, ja se oli aika tylsä? Is that still correct?

Yes, that is also grammatically correct:

  • Historian koe oli viime viikolla, ja se oli aika tylsä.
    – neutral word order, subject first.

  • Viime viikolla oli historian koe, ja se oli aika tylsä.
    – starts with the time expression, emphasizing “last week”.

Finnish word order is relatively flexible. Moving viime viikolla to the beginning emphasizes the time frame, but the basic meaning does not change.

Why is there no word for “the” in Historian koe?

Finnish does not have articles (“a/an” or “the”). Whether something is interpreted as “a history exam” or “the history exam” depends on context, not on a word like the.

In a typical school context, both

  • Historian koe oli viime viikolla

and

  • Viime viikon historian koe oli vaikea

would naturally be understood as referring to a specific, known exam, so in English we translate with “the history exam”.

Finnish indicates specificity through context, word order, and sometimes demonstratives like se / tämä, not through articles.