Learn Hardcore Finnish: Yksi salama iski lähelle taloa, mutta kukaan ei loukkaantunut. - One lightning strike hit near the house, but nobody was injured.

Yksi salama iski…
= One lightning bolt / a single lightning bolt struck…
This suggests one specific strike, possibly among several.
Salama iski…
Literally “Lightning struck…”
This can feel a bit more general or “generic lightning struck”, though in many contexts it can also refer to one strike. It’s a bit like English “Lightning struck near the house.”

So yksi adds the nuance “one particular bolt, a single strike,” which English often just expresses with “a lightning bolt”.

What exactly does iski mean, and which verb is it from?

Iski is the past tense (3rd person singular) of the verb iskeä.

iskeä = to strike, to hit, to stab, to smash
With lightning, it corresponds well to English “to strike”.

Basic pattern:

present:
- salama iskee = the lightning strikes / is striking
past:
- salama iski = the lightning struck

So in the sentence, iski is simply “(it) struck.”

How is lähelle taloa built grammatically, and why is taloa in the partitive?

Lähelle taloa literally means “to near (of) the house” → near the house.

Breakdown:

lähellä = near, close to (an adverb/adposition, originally from the form of place + adessive)
lähelle = the illative form of lähellä → to near, to a place near (something)
(Think: towards a nearby place.)

Then lähelle normally takes its complement in the partitive:

lähelle taloa = to near the house / close to the house
- talo = house
- taloa = partitive singular of talo

This pattern lähellä / lähelle + partitive is very common:

lähellä koulua = near the school
lähelle järveä = to near the lake, close to the lake

So taloa is in the partitive because it’s the standard case after lähellä / lähelle when they mean “near something.”

Could you also say talon lähelle instead of lähelle taloa? If yes, is there a difference?

Yes, talon lähelle is also grammatical:

talon lähelle
- talon = genitive of talo (of the house)
- lähelle = to near
  → literally: to the house’s vicinity / to near the house

In practice:

lähelle taloa
talon lähelle

Both usually translate as “near the house / close to the house”, and in most everyday contexts there’s little or no difference in meaning.

Very roughly:

lähelle taloa feels like “to a place that is near the house”.
talon lähelle feels like “to the area near the house”.

Both are natural; Finnish freely uses both patterns with many locative expressions.

What does mutta do here, and could it go somewhere else in the sentence?

Mutta is the conjunction “but”.

In the sentence:

…, mutta kukaan ei loukkaantunut.
= …, but nobody was injured.

It links two clauses that contrast:

Bad/sudden event: Yksi salama iski lähelle taloa
Reassuring contrast: kukaan ei loukkaantunut

Placement: mutta normally comes at the start of the second clause, just like “but” in English. You don’t normally move it around within its clause:

Natural: …, mutta kukaan ei loukkaantunut.
Not natural: …, kukaan mutta ei loukkaantunut. (wrong)

Why is it kukaan ei loukkaantunut and not ei kukaan loukkaantunut or joku ei loukkaantunut?

kukaan ei loukkaantunut is the neutral, standard way to say “nobody got hurt”.
- kukaan = anyone / anybody / no one, depending on context
  (With negation, it means nobody.)
- ei = negative verb (3rd person singular here)
- loukkaantunut = past participle used in the negative past → got hurt / was injured
ei kukaan loukkaantunut is possible, but it has emphasis:
- Roughly: “It wasn’t anybody who got hurt” / “Nobody (as opposed to someone) got hurt.”
  It can sound contrastive, focusing on “nobody (rather than somebody)”.
joku ei loukkaantunut means something else:
- joku = someone / somebody
- joku ei loukkaantunut = Somebody did not get hurt.
  → This implies that someone didn’t get hurt, maybe others did.
  That’s the opposite of what the original sentence says.

So kukaan ei loukkaantunut is the correct, neutral form for “nobody was injured.”

What is the difference between kukaan and ketään?

Both relate to “anyone / no one”, but they have different cases and functions.

kukaan = nominative form
→ typically used as a subject or in places where nominative is required:
- Kukaan ei loukkaantunut. = Nobody got hurt.
- Onko täällä kukaan? = Is anyone here?
ketään = partitive form of kukaan
→ used where partitive is required (object, after some prepositions/adverbs, etc.):
- En nähnyt ketään. = I didn’t see anyone / I saw nobody.
- Onko ketään kotona? = Is anyone at home? (here partitive after onko in many dialects/usage)

In your sentence, kukaan is the grammatical subject, so it must be in the nominative, not partitive: hence kukaan ei loukkaantunut, not ketään ei loukkaantunut.

Why is it ei loukkaantunut and not ei loukkaantui? How is the past tense negative formed?

Finnish forms the past negative with:

negative verb (ei, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät) + past active participle (-nut/-nyt/-neet)

So:

Positive past:
- Hän loukkaantui. = He/She got hurt.
Negative past:
- Hän ei loukkaantunut. = He/She did not get hurt.

You never say *ei loukkaantui. The -i past ending disappears, and you use the -nut/-nyt form instead.

Applied to the sentence:

kukaan → subject (3rd person singular)
ei → 3rd person singular negative verb
loukkaantunut → past participle of loukkaantua

→ kukaan ei loukkaantunut = nobody got hurt.

Why is the negative word ei singular here? Doesn’t kukaan mean “nobody”, which could refer to many people?

Grammatically, kukaan is singular.

It behaves like a singular pronoun (one person / anyone / nobody).
Therefore the negative auxiliary must also be 3rd person singular: ei.

Patterns:

Singular:
- Hän ei loukkaantunut. = He/She did not get hurt.
- Kukaan ei loukkaantunut. = Nobody got hurt.
  (still grammatically singular)
Plural:
- He eivät loukkaantuneet. = They did not get hurt.
- Kaikki eivät loukkaantuneet. = Not everyone got hurt / They didn’t all get hurt.

So even though “nobody” logically covers more than one potential person, the word kukaan is grammatically singular, and so you must use ei, not eivät.

Is the word order kukaan ei loukkaantunut fixed, or could it be ei kukaan loukkaantunut or loukkaantunut ei kukaan?

The neutral, most common order is:

kukaan ei loukkaantunut
(Subject – neg. verb – main verb form)

Other orders are possible but carry emphasis:

Ei kukaan loukkaantunut.
→ Emphasises the negation a bit, something like: “No, nobody got hurt.”
Often used as an answer or in contrast.
Loukkaantunut ei kukaan.
→ Very marked, almost poetic or strongly contrastive: “Hurt was nobody.”
This focuses heavily on nobody, not the action.

So yes, you can move elements for emphasis, but for everyday neutral speech, kukaan ei loukkaantunut is the basic word order.

If salama is “a lightning bolt”, how would you say “Several bolts of lightning struck near the house”?

You have a few natural options:

Use a number / quantifier:
- Useampi salama iski lähelle taloa.
  = Several lightning bolts struck near the house.
- Monta salamaa iski lähelle taloa.
  = Many lightning bolts struck near the house.
Use a clear plural subject:
- Salamat iskivät lähelle taloa.
  = The lightning bolts struck near the house.

Here iskivät is the 3rd person plural past of iskeä.

How would the sentence look in the perfect tense: “A lightning bolt has struck near the house, but nobody has been injured”?

Use olla + the past participle for the perfect:

Yksi salama on iskenyt lähelle taloa, mutta kukaan ei ole loukkaantunut.

Breakdown:

on iskenyt = has struck (3rd singular of olla
- past participle of iskeä)
ei ole loukkaantunut = has not been injured / has not gotten hurt
(negative + olla
- past participle of loukkaantua)

So the pattern generalises:

Salama on iskenyt… = Lightning has struck…
Kukaan ei ole loukkaantunut. = Nobody has been injured.