Learn Hardcore Finnish: Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää. - The teacher asked why we had not done the homework.

In Finnish, you normally put a comma before a subordinate clause, including indirect questions that start with a question word like miksi (why).

So the structure is:

Main clause: Opettaja kysyi
Subordinate clause (indirect question): miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää

Finnish punctuation rules require a comma between these:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää.

In English we would not put a comma here (“The teacher asked why we hadn’t done the homework”), but in standard written Finnish the comma is expected.

Why is it emme olleet tehneet and not just emme tehneet?

Emme olleet tehneet is the negative pluperfect (“had not done”), while emme tehneet is the negative imperfect (“did not do”).

emme olleet tehneet ≈ we had not done
emme tehneet ≈ we did not do

In this sentence, the teacher’s question is about something that should have been done before the time of asking. The asking happened in the past, and the not-doing of the homework is even earlier in time, so pluperfect fits well:

Past event 1: students (should have) done the homework
Past event 2: teacher asked about that earlier (not-)action

Hence emme olleet tehneet (“we had not done”) matches English hadn’t done.

You could also sometimes hear Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme tehneet kotitehtävää, using the imperfect. That focuses a bit more simply on the fact that in that past situation, the homework was not done, without highlighting the “before the asking” relationship as clearly. Both can be acceptable, but pluperfect is very natural here.

How exactly is emme olleet tehneet formed? It looks complicated.

Emme olleet tehneet is the 1st person plural negative pluperfect of tehdä (to do).

Breakdown:

ei = negative verb
1st person plural form of ei = emme (we don’t / didn’t / haven’t / hadn’t)
Auxiliary verb olla (to be) in past plural participle form: olleet
Main verb tehdä in past active participle plural: tehneet

So:

Positive pluperfect:
- olimme tehneet = we had done
Negative pluperfect:
- emme olleet tehneet = we had not done

Some forms for comparison (with tehdä):

olin tehnyt – I had done
en ollut tehnyt – I had not done
olimme tehneet – we had done
emme olleet tehneet – we had not done

The personal ending (who is doing it) moves to the negative verb (emme), and olleet and tehneet stay the same for all persons in the plural.

How do we know the subject is “we” if me isn’t written?

Finnish is a pro-drop language: personal pronouns are often left out because the verb form itself shows the person and number.

In emme olleet tehneet:

emme is specifically 1st person plural negative (we not)
That already tells you the subject is we

So the full logical form is:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi me emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää.

But since emme already reveals me, the pronoun is usually left out unless you want to emphasize it (for example, to contrast we with someone else). This is completely normal Finnish.

Why is kotitehtävää in the partitive case instead of kotitehtävä?

Kotitehtävää is the partitive singular of kotitehtävä (homework, homework assignment).

In Finnish, the direct object in a negative sentence is usually in the partitive. Compare:

Positive, completed action:
- Olimme tehneet kotitehtävän.
  = We had done the homework.
  (kotitehtävän = total object, genitive singular)
Negative:
- Emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää.
  = We had not done the homework.
  (kotitehtävää = partitive singular)

So:

Negation → object tends to be in partitive.
Using the partitive here doesn’t mean “some homework” in a vague way; it’s simply the regular pattern for a negated object.

You might also see:

Emme olleet tehneet kotitehtäviä.
= We hadn’t done (our) homework assignments (plural partitive, more like “any of the homework tasks”).

But for “the homework” in a school context, kotitehtävää in a negative sentence is perfectly natural.

Is there a difference between kotitehtävä and läksyt here?

Yes, mainly in style and nuance:

kotitehtävä = “homework assignment”; more formal / neutral
- kotitehtävää (partitive singular) = the homework (as a task that should have been done)
läksyt = “homework” in everyday speech; more colloquial
- läksyjä (partitive plural) = (some) homework assignments

So you could also say:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme olleet tehneet läksyjä.

That sounds a bit more informal, like ordinary school talk. The sentence with kotitehtävää is neutral and fits well in textbooks or more formal language.

Could this sentence be said in the passive, like miksei oltu tehty kotitehtävää? How does that differ from miksi emme olleet tehneet?

Yes, the idea can be expressed in the impersonal passive, but it changes the nuance.

miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää
= why we had not done the homework
→ clear, explicit subject we.
miksei oltu tehty kotitehtävää
= why the homework hadn’t been done / why no one had done the homework
→ subjectless, general, corresponds to English impersonal or passive.

Full sentence in passive-style:

Opettaja kysyi, miksei oltu tehty kotitehtävää.

That sounds like the teacher is asking why the homework hadn’t been done, without specifying exactly who should have done it (though context might imply “you (plural)”).

The original emme olleet tehneet is clearer about responsibility: we had not done it.

What would be the direct-speech version of this, and how does it turn into indirect speech?

Direct speech (teacher talking to the students) could be:

Opettaja kysyi: Miksi ette olleet tehneet kotitehtävää?
= The teacher asked: Why hadn’t you done the homework?

When reported as indirect speech from the students’ point of view:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää.
= The teacher asked why we hadn’t done the homework.

Changes that happen:

Pronoun / person shift
- Direct: ette = you (plural)
- Indirect (student reporting): emme = we
Question form → clause form
- Direct question syntax: verb immediately after miksi: Miksi ette olleet tehneet…?
- Indirect question: same word order, but becomes a subordinate clause attached to kysyi.
No question mark in indirect speech:
- Direct: ?
- Indirect: .

Tense (pluperfect) stays the same because the time relationship (homework not done before the asking) is the same.

Can the comma be omitted, or can the word order in emme olleet tehneet be changed?

Comma:

In standard written Finnish, you keep the comma before a subordinate clause starting with miksi:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää. ✅

Writing it without the comma is considered incorrect or at best non-standard in formal texts.

Word order of the verbs:

The order auxiliary + participle is fixed in this tense:

emme olleet tehneet ✅
emme tehneet olleet ❌ (wrong)
olimme tehneet emme ❌ (wrong)

The normal order in this kind of indirect question is:

miksi + (subject/negative verb) + olleet + tehneet + object

You can move kotitehtävää for emphasis, for example:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi kotitehtävää emme olleet tehneet.

But you can’t scramble the two verb forms themselves.

Why is it kysyi, miksi and not kysyi, että miksi?

In Finnish:

että introduces statements (content clauses).
Question words like miksi, milloin, missä, miten, mitä introduce indirect questions.

The verb kysyä (to ask) naturally takes an indirect question clause without että:

Opettaja kysyi, miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää. ✅
Opettaja kysyi, että miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää. ❌ (non-standard / wrong)

Other examples:

Hän kysyi, milloin tulet. – He asked when you are coming.
Opettaja kysyi, olimmeko tehneet kotitehtävän. – The teacher asked whether/if we had done the homework.

So after kysyä, use the question word (or a verb–subject inversion) directly, not että.

Why is opettaja in the basic form and not in some special case to show it’s the subject?

In Finnish, the subject in its basic role is usually in the nominative case (the “dictionary form”):

opettaja = teacher (nominative singular)

In this sentence:

Opettaja kysyi…
→ opettaja is the subject, kysyi is the verb.

Finnish has no articles (a, an, the), so opettaja can mean:

a teacher
the teacher

Depending on context. Only context tells you whether it’s a specific teacher or just some teacher in general. There is no special subject case here; nominative is the normal subject form.

Can you give a quick grammatical breakdown of each word in the sentence?

Sure:

Opettaja
- Noun
- Meaning: teacher
- Case: nominative singular
- Role: subject of the main clause
kysyi
- Verb kysyä (to ask)
- Tense: imperfect (simple past)
- Person/number: 3rd person singular
- Role: main verb (“asked”)
miksi
- Interrogative adverb
- Meaning: why
- Introduces an indirect question (subordinate clause)
emme
- Negative verb ei
- Person/number: 1st person plural
- Meaning: we (do) not / we (did) not / we have not / we had not (exact tense comes from the auxiliary)
- Role: carries person/number and negation
olleet
- Past active participle of olla (to be), plural form
- Here used as auxiliary in the pluperfect
- Together with emme and tehneet, forms the negative pluperfect
tehneet
- Past active participle of tehdä (to do), plural form
- Main lexical verb in the compound tense (what was or wasn’t done)
kotitehtävää
- Noun kotitehtävä (homework assignment)
- Case: partitive singular
- Role: direct object of emme olleet tehneet
- Partitive because the clause is negative

Put together:

Main clause: Opettaja kysyi, – The teacher asked,
Subordinate clause (indirect question): miksi emme olleet tehneet kotitehtävää. – why we had not done the homework.