Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

Today the bedroom and the study must be vacuumed.

Breakdown of Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

• olla: to be
• ja: and
• tänään: today
• makuuhuone: the bedroom
• työhuone: the study
• imuroida: to vacuum

Questions & Answers about Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

What exactly does “on imuroitava” mean, and how is it different from just “imuroidaan” or “täytyy imuroida”?

“on imuroitava” is a necessive construction meaning “(must) be vacuumed” / “has to be vacuumed.”

• imuroidaan = passive present, “(people) vacuum / are vacuuming”
  • Tänään imuroidaan. = “Today there is vacuuming (going on).”
• täytyy imuroida = “(someone) must vacuum”
  • Tänään täytyy imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone. = “Today (we/they/someone) must vacuum the bedroom and the study.”
• on imuroitava = “must be vacuumed”
  • Focuses on the necessity of the rooms being in a vacuumed state, not on who does it.

So “Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava” literally:
“Today the bedroom and (the) study are to-be-vacuumed / must be vacuumed.”

What grammatical form is “imuroitava”?

imuroitava is the necessive passive form of the verb imuroida (“to vacuum”), built with the -tava/-ttava suffix.

More technically:

• verb: imuroida (to vacuum)
• passive stem: imuroi-
  • -tava → imuroitava
• it’s often called:
  • the passive present participle
  • the 4th infinitive in -tava
  • or simply the -tava/-ttava form

It usually combines with olla (on, oli, olisi…) to express obligation or necessity:

• Huone on imuroitava. = “The room must be vacuumed.”
• Kirjat on luettava. = “The books must be read.”

Why are “makuuhuone” and “työhuone” in the basic form (nominative) and not in some object case like “makuuhuoneen” or “makuuhuonetta”?

In this sentence, “makuuhuone ja työhuone” are treated as the grammatical subject, not as objects.

Pattern:

• [subject] + on + [tava/ttava-form]

So:

• Makuuhuone ja työhuone = subject (“the bedroom and the study”)
• on = verb “is”
• imuroitava = predicate (“to be vacuumed / that must be vacuumed”)

The rooms are described as things that are in a “must-be-vacuumed” state, so they stay in nominative:

• Makuuhuone on imuroitava.
• Makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

If you used “makuuhuoneen”, you’d be moving toward a genitive structure that doesn’t fit this pattern here.

Why is it “on imuroitava” (singular) when there are two rooms, “makuuhuone ja työhuone”? Shouldn’t it be “ovat imuroitavat”?

In necessive sentences like this, Finnish very often uses “on” (3rd person singular) even with a plural subject:

• Kirjat on luettava. = “The books must be read.”
• Ikkunat on pestävä. = “The windows must be washed.”
• Makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

Here, “on imuroitava” behaves almost like a fixed predicate expressing obligation; “on” doesn’t need to agree in number with the subject.

You can theoretically say:

• Makuuhuone ja työhuone ovat imuroitavat.

But that sounds much more like a stative description (“the bedroom and study are the ones that are to be vacuumed”) and is stylistically heavy and rare in everyday speech. For obligation, the natural form is “on imuroitava” regardless of the number of rooms.

Who is actually doing the vacuuming here? Is there a hidden subject like “someone” or “we”?

The sentence is impersonal: it doesn’t state who vacuums.

• Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.
  = “Today the bedroom and study must be vacuumed”
  (by someone/people/we/you — it’s deliberately vague)

Typical interpretations:

• The responsibility is shared or obvious from context (e.g. everyone in the household knows it’s their job).
• It can be read as a neutral, instruction-like statement.

If you want to make the doer explicit with this pattern, you’d generally use a genitive subject:

• Minun on imuroitava makuuhuone ja työhuone.
  = “I must vacuum the bedroom and the study.”
• Meidän on imuroitava… = “We must vacuum…”

Your sentence simply leaves out the doer entirely and focuses only on the necessity.

Is “on imuroitava” something you hear in everyday spoken Finnish, or is it more formal?

“on imuroitava” is more typical of written language, instructions, notices, and slightly formal speech.

In everyday spoken Finnish, people more often say:

• Tänään pitää imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone.
• Tänään täytyy imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone.
• Spoken colloquial: Tänään pitää imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone → Tänään pitää imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone (unchanged, but with informal pronunciation).

Your original sentence is completely correct, but it feels like:

• a schedule item (“On today’s list, the bedroom and study must be vacuumed.”)
• or a written instruction on a chore list.

How could I say the same thing in a more “normal” or neutral everyday way?

Common neutral alternatives:

1. Tänään täytyy imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone.
   = “Today (we/you/someone) must vacuum the bedroom and the study.”

2. Tänään pitää imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone.
   = “Today we need to vacuum the bedroom and the study.”

3. If you include the doer:

   • Minun pitää imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone.
   • Meidän täytyy imuroida makuuhuone ja työhuone.

Your original:

• Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.
  Sounds a bit more formal/impersonal, like a written task list.

Can I change the word order? For example: “Makuuhuone ja työhuone on tänään imuroitava” or “Makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava tänään”?

Yes, you can change the word order, and all of these are grammatically correct, with slightly different emphasis:

1. Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

   • Emphasis: today is when this must happen.

2. Makuuhuone ja työhuone on tänään imuroitava.

   • Emphasis: the bedroom and study (today, those specifically must be vacuumed).

3. Makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava tänään.

   • More neutral; “today” is just added info at the end.

Meaning-wise they are the same; Finnish word order is somewhat flexible, but moving elements to the front changes focus or emphasis rather than core meaning.

What is the difference between “makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava” and something with “-ssa”, like “makuuhuoneessa ja työhuoneessa on imuroitava”?

These have different structures and nuances:

1. Tänään makuuhuone ja työhuone on imuroitava.

   • The rooms themselves are the things to be vacuumed.
   • Literally: “Today the bedroom and (the) study are-to-be-vacuumed.”

2. Tänään makuuhuoneessa ja työhuoneessa on imuroitava.

   • makuuhuoneessa / työhuoneessa = “in the bedroom / in the study”
   • Literally: “Today in the bedroom and in the study there must be vacuuming (done).”
   • Focus shifts slightly to what must be done in those rooms rather than treating the rooms as objects.

In many practical contexts the difference is small, and both would be understood as “today you need to vacuum the bedroom and the study.”
Grammatically, though:

• Version 1: rooms = subject.
• Version 2: rooms-in-inessive = location, and the vacuuming is an obligatory activity happening there.

How would I say something like “I must vacuum the bedroom and the study today” using the same “imuroitava” pattern?

Use a genitive subject + on + imuroitava + object:

• Minun on imuroitava makuuhuone ja työhuone tänään.
  = “I must vacuum the bedroom and the study today.”

Structure:

• Minun = “my” (genitive of minä) → marks the obligated person
• on = “must / has to” (literally “is”)
• imuroitava = necessive form of imuroida
• makuuhuone ja työhuone = objects of the vacuuming
• tänään = “today”

Similarly:

• Meidän on imuroitava… = “We must vacuum…”
• Sinun on imuroitava… = “You must vacuum…”

How do you negate this idea naturally? How would you say “Today the bedroom and study do not need to be vacuumed”?

You usually don’t negate “on imuroitava” directly. Instead, you use verbs like tarvita, pitää, or olla pakko:

• Tänään makuuhuonetta ja työhuonetta ei tarvitse imuroida.
  = “Today the bedroom and study don’t need to be vacuumed.”

• Tänään makuuhuonetta ja työhuonetta ei ole pakko imuroida.
  = “Today it’s not necessary to vacuum the bedroom and study.”

Notice:

• In the negative versions, makuuhuonetta ja työhuonetta often appear in partitive (they’re under the scope of negation and seen as “not done at all”).
• A literal negative like “ei ole imuroitava” sounds stiff and is rarely used in everyday Finnish.

What exactly do “makuuhuone” and “työhuone” mean, and how are these words built?

Both are compound nouns:

• makuuhuone

  • makuu = “lying down, sleeping”
  • huone = “room” → makuuhuone = “bedroom”

• työhuone

  • työ = “work”
  • huone = “room” → työhuone = “study / office room / workroom”

In your sentence, both are in nominative singular:

• makuuhuone ja työhuone = “(the) bedroom and (the) study” (Finnish has no articles).

Why doesn’t Finnish use anything like “the” here? How do I know it’s “the bedroom” and not “a bedroom”?

Finnish has no articles (no “a/an/the”), so the same form can correspond to “a” or “the” in English.

• makuuhuone ja työhuone could be translated as:
  • “a bedroom and a study”
  • “the bedroom and the study”

Which one you choose in English depends on:

• context (e.g. in a home with one clear bedroom and one study → usually “the”),
• and natural English style.

In a household chore context, English naturally uses “the bedroom and the study”, because we assume specific, known rooms in that home. Finnish doesn’t need to mark that specificity overtly.