Learn Hardcore Finnish: Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärrä tehtävää. - I want to be honest with the teacher if I don’t understand the task.

Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärrä tehtävää.

I want to be honest with the teacher if I don’t understand the task.

Breakdown of Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärrä tehtävää.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärrä tehtävää.

Why do we say “Haluan olla rehellinen” and not “Haluan rehellinen”?

In Finnish, the verb haluta (to want) is normally followed by another verb in the infinitive form, not directly by an adjective.

Haluan olla rehellinen
= I want to be honest
Literally: I-want to-be honest.

Here olla is the basic (1st) infinitive of olla = to be.
You can think of the pattern as:

Haluan + (to do something)
- Haluan olla rehellinen. – I want to be honest.
- Haluan opiskella suomea. – I want to study Finnish.
- Haluan syödä nyt. – I want to eat now.

“Haluan rehellinen” is ungrammatical because an adjective cannot directly follow haluan like that; you need the “to be” verb (olla) in between.

Why is it “rehellinen” and not “rehellistä” or some other form?

Rehellinen is an adjective used as a predicative complement to the subject minä (implied in haluan). In this structure:

Subject: (minä) = I
Copula verb: olla = to be
Predicative / complement: rehellinen

In Finnish, this kind of predicative adjective usually appears in the nominative singular:

Olen väsynyt. – I am tired.
Hän on iloinen. – He/She is happy.
Haluan olla rehellinen. – I want to be honest.

So we use rehellinen (nominative), not rehellistä (partitive), because it’s describing the subject’s state or quality, not functioning as an object or partitive-like quantity.

What case is “opettajalle”, and why is it used here?

Opettajalle is in the allative case. The ending -lle is the allative suffix, often meaning “to” / “onto” / “towards” or “for”.

Here it’s used because in Finnish you are honest to someone:

olla rehellinen jollekulle = to be honest to someone

So:

Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.
= I want to be honest to the teacher.

Other examples with the allative:

Anna se opettajalle. – Give it to the teacher.
Kirjoita viesti ystävällesi. – Write a message to your friend.

Could we say “opettajalle rehellinen” instead of “rehellinen opettajalle”?

Yes, Finnish word order is fairly flexible, and both are understandable:

Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.
Haluan olla opettajalle rehellinen.

The first word order (rehellinen opettajalle) is more neutral and typical in everyday speech.
The second (opettajalle rehellinen) slightly emphasizes “to the teacher”, as if contrasting with being honest to someone else or in some other situation.

Both are correct; choose the standard rehellinen opettajalle unless you have a reason to stress opettajalle.

Why is there no “minä” in the sentence?

In Finnish, personal pronouns are often dropped when the person is clear from the verb ending:

Haluan = I want
(the ending -n already marks 1st person singular)

So:

(Minä) haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle…

Both are correct:

Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle… – natural, neutral
Minä haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle… – extra emphasis on “I”
(e.g., contrasting with someone else: I want to be honest, even if others don’t)

Here, dropping minä is the default natural style.

Why is it “en ymmärrä” and not “en ymmärrän”?

Finnish negation uses a special negative verb (en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät) + a form of the main verb called the connegative. The main verb does not conjugate in person when it’s negated.

Pattern:

Ymmärrän. – I understand.
→ En ymmärrä. – I don’t understand.

Conjugation with ymmärtää (to understand):

(minä) ymmärrän → en ymmärrä
(sinä) ymmärrät → et ymmärrä
(hän) ymmärtää → ei ymmärrä

So “en ymmärrän” is incorrect; the correct form is “en ymmärrä”.

Why is “tehtävää” (partitive) used instead of “tehtävän”?

Tehtävää is in the partitive singular. In Finnish, the object of a negative verb is typically in the partitive:

Ymmärrän tehtävän. – I understand the exercise.
En ymmärrä tehtävää. – I don’t understand the exercise.

This is a core rule:
Negative sentences → object usually in partitive.

So:

Näen koiran. – I see the dog.
En näe koiraa. – I don’t see the dog.
Luin kirjan. – I read the book (finished).
En lukenut kirjaa. – I didn’t read the book.

Hence: en ymmärrä tehtävää is the natural, correct form.

What exactly does “tehtävä” mean here – exercise, task, or assignment?

Tehtävä is a general noun meaning:

task, exercise, assignment, problem (to be solved)

The exact English word depends on context:

In a school workbook: usually exercise or question.
In homework/uni context: assignment.
In work life: task or duty.

In this sentence, with opettajalle, it most likely refers to a school exercise / homework task / assignment the teacher has given.

Do we always need a comma before “jos”, or is it optional?

In standard written Finnish, you do use a comma between the main clause and the “jos” (if) clause, regardless of order:

Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärrä tehtävää.
Jos en ymmärrä tehtävää, haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.

In informal writing or text messages, you may sometimes see the comma dropped:

Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle jos en ymmärrä tehtävää.

But for correct, formal usage, keep the comma between the clauses.

Can the “jos”-clause come first: “Jos en ymmärrä tehtävää, haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle”?

Yes, that is perfectly correct and very natural:

Jos en ymmärrä tehtävää, haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.
= If I don’t understand the assignment, I want to be honest with the teacher.

Both word orders are fine:

Main clause first:
- Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärrä tehtävää.
“If”-clause first:
- Jos en ymmärrä tehtävää, haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.

The meaning is the same; starting with jos slightly highlights the condition.

What’s the difference between “jos” and “kun” in this kind of sentence?

Both can translate as “if/when”, but they have different nuances:

jos = if (a real or hypothetical condition)
kun = when (time-related, or something expected/known to happen)

In this sentence:

Jos en ymmärrä tehtävää…
= If I don’t understand the assignment (it may or may not happen).

If you said:

Kun en ymmärrä tehtävää, haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.

it would sound more like:

When(ever) I don’t understand the assignment, I want to be honest with the teacher
(assuming it will happen, or talking about a recurring situation).

So jos is the right choice for a conditional if.

Can I say “Haluan olla rehellinen opettajani kanssa” instead of “opettajalle”?

You can, but it changes the nuance slightly.

opettajalle (allative) → to the teacher
- Haluan olla rehellinen opettajalle.
  = I want to be honest to the teacher.
  (about what I know/don’t know, what I can/can’t do)
opettajani kanssa (with my teacher) → with my teacher
- Haluan olla rehellinen opettajani kanssa.
  Literally: I want to be honest with my teacher.
  This can sound more like in my relationship with my teacher I want to be honest.

Both are grammatically correct.
For “tell the teacher honestly if I don’t understand”, opettajalle is the more typical and accurate choice.

How would this sentence change in the past tense?

To put it in past tense, you usually change haluan → halusin and en ymmärrä → en ymmärtänyt:

Halusin olla rehellinen opettajalle, jos en ymmärtänyt tehtävää.
= I wanted to be honest with the teacher if I didn’t understand the assignment.

Note:

halusin = I wanted (past of haluta)
en ymmärtänyt = I didn’t understand (negative past: en
- past participle ymmärtänyt)
tehtävää stays partitive because the sentence is still negative.

So the basic structure stays the same; only the verb forms move to the past.