Log inSign up

Sytytän kaksi kynttilää, jotta ilta on mukavampi.

Sytytän kaksi kynttilää, jotta ilta on mukavampi.
I light two candles so that the evening is more pleasant.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Sytytän kaksi kynttilää, jotta ilta on mukavampi.

What does sytytän mean exactly, and how is it formed?

Sytytän means “I light / I am lighting” (as in lighting something on fire or turning on a light).

Morphology:

  • sytyt- = verb stem from sytyttää “to light (something), to ignite, to turn on (a light)”
  • -ä- = part of the infinitive stem, kept for vowel harmony
  • -n = 1st person singular ending “I”

So:

  • sytyttää = to light (something)
  • sytytän = I light

It is transitive: you always light something (here: kaksi kynttilää, “two candles”).

What is the difference between sytyttää and syttyä?

They are related but different verbs:

  • sytyttää = to light / to cause something to catch fire or turn on

    • Transitive (takes an object)
    • Example: Sytytän kynttilän. – I light a candle.

  • syttyä = to catch fire / to be lit / to turn on (by itself)

    • Intransitive (no direct object)
    • Example: Kynttilä syttyy. – The candle lights (itself) / The candle ignites.

In your sentence, you are actively lighting something, so sytytän is the correct choice.

Why is it kaksi kynttilää and not kaksi kynttilä or kaksi kynttilät?

After numerals 2 and above, Finnish normally uses the partitive singular of a countable noun.

  • Nominative singular: kynttilä “candle”
  • Partitive singular: kynttilää
  • Partitive plural: kynttilöitä

With numbers:

  • kaksi kynttilää = two candles
  • kolme kynttilää = three candles
  • kymmenen kynttilää = ten candles

So the pattern is:

numeral (2+) + partitive singular

That’s why kaksi kynttilää is correct.

How can I tell that kynttilää is partitive singular, not plural?

For kynttilä:

  • Partitive singular: kynttilää
  • Partitive plural: kynttilöitä

The plural partitive has:

  • a plural marker -i- / -j- / -oi- / -öi- before the case ending, here -öi-
  • then the partitive ending -tä / -ä

So:

  • kynttilää – no plural marker → partitive singular
  • kynttilöitä – -öi-
    • -tä → partitive plural

In your sentence, the form is kynttilää, so it is partitive singular as required after kaksi.

Why is there a comma before jotta?

Jotta introduces a subordinate clause that explains purpose or result (“so that / in order that”).

The sentence structure is:

  • Main clause: Sytytän kaksi kynttilää – I light two candles
  • Subordinate clause: jotta ilta on mukavampi – so that the evening is more pleasant

In standard written Finnish, a comma is placed before conjunctions like että, koska, vaikka, kun, jotta when they introduce a subordinate clause. So the comma before jotta is normal and expected.

What is the nuance of jotta compared to että?

Both can be translated as “that”, but they have different typical uses:

  • että = “that” (neutral, very common)

    • Used after verbs of saying, thinking, feeling, etc.
    • Example: Tiedän, että olet väsynyt. – I know that you’re tired.

  • jotta = “so that / in order that” (goal/purpose, a bit more formal or written)

    • Introduces a clause expressing intention or desired result.
    • Example: Laitan herätyskellon soimaan, jotta herään ajoissa. – I set an alarm so that I wake up on time.

In your sentence, jotta clearly marks a purpose: you light the candles with the aim that the evening will be more pleasant.

You could also say:

  • Sytytän kaksi kynttilää, että ilta on mukavampi.
    This is understandable, but että here sounds more colloquial and a bit less “purpose-like” than jotta.
Why is it jotta ilta on mukavampi and not jotta ilta olisi mukavampi?

Both are grammatically possible, but they differ slightly in nuance:

  1. jotta ilta on mukavampi

    • Uses present indicative (on = “is”).
    • Feels more like a straightforward consequence, close to “so that the evening is more pleasant (as a result).”
    • Quite natural in everyday, especially spoken Finnish.

  2. jotta ilta olisi mukavampi

    • Uses conditional (olisi = “would be”).
    • More clearly expresses goal, intention, or desired outcome.
    • Often considered more “textbook” or standard with jotta in formal language.

Your original sentence is acceptable; if you want to sound very textbook/purpose-like, you can choose olisi.

What does mukavampi mean, and how is it formed?

Mukavampi is the comparative form of the adjective mukava.

  • mukava = “nice, pleasant, comfortable”
  • mukavampi = “nicer, more pleasant, more comfortable”

Formation:

  • Base: mukava
  • Drop final -a
  • Add -mpi → mukavampi

So ilta on mukavampi literally means “the evening is more pleasant / nicer”.

Could I say enemmän mukava instead of mukavampi?

No, not in normal Finnish.

Comparatives of adjectives are almost always formed with -mpi, not with enemmän (“more”) + base adjective.

So:

  • mukavampi = correct
  • enemmän mukava = unnatural/wrong in this sense

You can use enemmän with nouns or verbs:

  • enemmän kahvia – more coffee
  • enemmän matkustaa – to travel more

But with standard adjectives like mukava, use -mpi:

  • mukava → mukavampi → mukavin (superlative: “nicest”).
Why is ilta in the nominative form and not illan or illasta?

In the clause ilta on mukavampi:

  • ilta is the subject (“the evening”)
  • on is the verb “is”
  • mukavampi is the predicative adjective describing the subject

For a simple “X is Y” sentence, Finnish usually uses nominative for both the subject and the predicative:

  • Ilta on mukava. – The evening is nice.
  • Ilta on mukavampi. – The evening is nicer.

Forms like illan (genitive) or illasta (elative) would change the structure/meaning:

  • illan = “of the evening”
  • illasta = “from/out of the evening”

So nominative ilta is correct as the subject of the clause.

Could I say Sytytän kaksi kynttilää, jotta illasta tulee mukavampi? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can, and it’s quite natural.

  • Sytytän kaksi kynttilää, jotta illasta tulee mukavampi.
    • Literally: I light two candles so that from the evening will become more pleasant.
    • Normal translation: I light two candles so that the evening will become more pleasant.

Here:

  • illasta = elative (“from/out of the evening”)
  • tulee mukavampi = “becomes nicer/more pleasant”

The nuance:

  • jotta ilta on mukavampi focuses on the state: the evening is more pleasant.
  • jotta illasta tulee mukavampi focuses on the change: the evening becomes more pleasant.

Both are correct; the second highlights the transformation a bit more.

Why is sytytän in the present tense if it can refer to something I’m about to do (the near future)?

Finnish typically uses the present tense for:

  • Actions happening now
  • Regular or habitual actions
  • The near future, when it’s clear from context

So:

  • Sytytän kaksi kynttilää can mean
    • “I (now) light two candles”
    • or “I am going to light two candles (now/soon)”

Finnish does not need a special “will” form. Context usually makes it clear whether you mean present or near future.

Is the word order jotta ilta on mukavampi fixed, or could I say jotta mukavampi on ilta?

The natural word order here is:

  • jotta ilta on mukavampi

This is:

  • Subject (ilta) – Verb (on) – Predicative (mukavampi)

You could technically move elements around in very marked or poetic speech, but:

  • jotta mukavampi on ilta sounds unnatural or poetic/old-fashioned at best.

For normal, modern Finnish, keep:

  • ilta on mukavampi rather than rearranging the words.