Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä, vaikka kyse on vain harjoituksesta.

The teacher explained that the fire alarm is important, even though it is only a drill.

Breakdown of Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä, vaikka kyse on vain harjoituksesta.

• olla: to be
• tärkeä: important
• vaikka: even though
• selittää: to explain
• vain: only
• että: that
• opettaja: the teacher
• -sta: about
• palohälytys: the fire alarm
• kyse: the matter
• harjoitus: the drill

Questions & Answers about Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä, vaikka kyse on vain harjoituksesta.

What is the function of että in this sentence, and why is there a comma before it?

Että is a conjunction that introduces a content clause (a that-clause) after verbs of saying, thinking, explaining, etc.

So:

• Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä...
  = The teacher explained that the fire alarm is important...

In Finnish punctuation, a comma is normally used before että when it starts a subordinate clause. So the pattern

• [main clause], että [subordinate clause]

is standard and the comma is required by Finnish comma rules. You should not drop the comma in writing, even though in English we often write The teacher explained that... without a comma.

Why is the main verb selitti in the past tense, but on is in the present tense (palohälytys on tärkeä)?

The verb selitti is past tense because the explaining happened in the past.

The verb on (present tense) is used because the importance of the fire alarm is still true at the time of speaking. This is very natural in Finnish reported speech:

• Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä.
  = The teacher explained that the fire alarm *is important.*

You would use oli (past) only if the statement was true only at that past time, or you are firmly placing it in the past:

• Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys oli tärkeä juuri silloin.
  = The teacher explained that the fire alarm *was important at that moment.*

Why is it palohälytys on tärkeä, and not palohälytys on tärkeää?

Here tärkeä is a predicative adjective describing palohälytys:

• palohälytys (subject, singular nominative)
• on (verb)
• tärkeä (predicative adjective, singular nominative)

In Finnish, a predicative adjective usually agrees in number and case with a singular, countable subject in a normal, complete statement:

• Palohälytys on tärkeä. – The fire alarm is important.
• Palohälytykset ovat tärkeitä. – Fire alarms are important.

The form tärkeää (partitive) is used in different contexts, for example:

• With an unbounded or abstract subject:
  On tärkeää, että... – It is important that...
• When there is no concrete subject:
  On tärkeää kuunnella ohjeita. – It is important to listen to the instructions.

But here we have a clear, concrete subject (palohälytys), so tärkeä is correct.

Why is there no article like a or the before palohälytys?

Finnish has no articles (no equivalent of English a/an/the), so palohälytys can mean:

• a fire alarm
• the fire alarm
• fire alarm (in a general sense)

The context decides how you translate it. In a school context, the natural English rendering is:

• The teacher explained that the fire alarm is important...

because we assume everyone knows what system we are talking about.

What does vaikka mean here, and what is its role?

Vaikka is a conjunction meaning even though / although.

In this sentence:

• ..., vaikka kyse on vain harjoituksesta.
  = ..., even though it is only a drill.

So vaikka introduces a concessive clause: it states a fact that might seem to weaken or contradict what was just said, but actually doesn’t cancel it. The message is:

• The fire alarm is important, despite the fact that it is only a drill.

What does the expression kyse on (jostakin) mean, and how literal is it?

Kyse on (jostakin) is an idiomatic Finnish expression meaning roughly:

• it is a matter of (something)
• it is about (something)
• what is at issue is (something)

In this sentence:

• kyse on vain harjoituksesta
  literally: what is at issue is only a drill
  natural English: it is only a drill / we are only dealing with a drill

The structure is:

• kyse on + [elative case]
  e.g. kyse on harjoituksesta – it is about a drill / the issue is a drill

This is very common, so it is good to learn kyse on jostakin (elative) as a fixed pattern.

Why is harjoituksesta in the form with -sta and not just harjoitus?

Harjoituksesta is the elative case (from inside something) of harjoitus:

• harjoitus – a drill, an exercise (nominative)
• harjoituksesta – from / about / out of a drill (elative)

With the expression kyse on, Finnish normally uses the elative:

• kyse on rahasta – it is about money
• kyse on työstä – it is about work
• kyse on harjoituksesta – it is about a drill

So the case is required by the idiom kyse on + elative. Translating literally to English can be confusing; think of it as “it is about X”, where X is in the elative in Finnish.

Can you replace kyse on vain harjoituksesta with se on vain harjoitus? Would that change the meaning?

Yes, you can say:

• ..., vaikka se on vain harjoitus.

This is grammatically correct and understandable. The difference is mostly style and nuance:

• kyse on vain harjoituksesta
  – a bit more formal / explanatory, like even though it is only a matter of a drill.
• se on vain harjoitus
  – more neutral and direct: even though it is only a drill.

In many everyday contexts se on vain harjoitus would be more common in spoken Finnish, but kyse on vain harjoituksesta sounds very natural in an explanatory or instructional context (such as a teacher talking about procedures).

Why is vain placed before harjoituksesta? Can it move to another position?

Vain means only / just and usually comes right before the word or phrase it limits.

• vain harjoituksesta – only about a drill / just a drill

In this clause:

• kyse on vain harjoituksesta
  – it is only a drill / it is only about a drill

You could say kyse on harjoituksesta vain in some contexts, but it sounds unusual here and can add a different, slightly contrastive emphasis. The most natural, neutral position is:

• vain
  • the word it modifies
    vain harjoituksesta = only a drill

What does palohälytys literally consist of, and is it always written as one word?

Palohälytys is a compound noun:

• palo – fire (in compounds: palo-)
• hälytys – alarm, alert

Put together:

• palohälytys – fire alarm (the alarm or the system)

In Finnish, such combinations are normally written as one word. Writing it as palo hälytys would be incorrect. Compounds like this are extremely common:

• palomies – firefighter (palo
  • mies)
• palokunta – fire brigade (palo
  • kunta)

You would not normally say tulihälytys; palo is the combining form used in fire-related compounds.

How do the adjective and noun agree in palohälytys on tärkeä? What happens in the plural?

In palohälytys on tärkeä:

• palohälytys – singular nominative
• tärkeä – singular nominative predicative adjective

The adjective tärkeä agrees with the noun in number (singular) and case (nominative).

In the plural:

• Palohälytykset ovat tärkeitä.
  – palohälytykset (plural nominative)
  – tärkeitä (plural partitive, used here as a typical plural predicative form)

So:

• singular: Palohälytys on tärkeä.
• plural: Palohälytykset ovat tärkeitä.

Is the comma before vaikka mandatory? Could you write the sentence without it?

In standard written Finnish, the comma before vaikka here is mandatory, because vaikka starts a subordinate clause that comes after the main clause:

• Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä, vaikka kyse on vain harjoituksesta.

Structure:

• main clause 1: Opettaja selitti
• että-clause: että palohälytys on tärkeä
• vaikka-clause: vaikka kyse on vain harjoituksesta

Subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions like että, vaikka, koska are separated by commas when they follow a main clause. So you should keep the comma.

Could the word order inside the että-clause be changed, like että tärkeä on palohälytys?

In theory, Finnish allows quite flexible word order, but not all orders are natural.

• että palohälytys on tärkeä is the normal and neutral way to say it.
• että tärkeä on palohälytys is grammatically possible, but sounds very marked and odd here, as if you were strongly contrasting palohälytys with something else (it is the fire alarm that is important). Even then, it is not the typical way to express that contrast.

For ordinary, neutral statements, stick to:

• [subject] + [verb] + [predicative]
  palohälytys on tärkeä

Is selitti always used like explained that, or can it also take a direct object?

Selittää can be used with:

1. An että-clause:

   • Opettaja selitti, että palohälytys on tärkeä.
     – The teacher explained that the fire alarm is important.

2. A direct object (what is being explained):

   • Opettaja selitti palohälytyksen merkityksen.
     – The teacher explained the meaning of the fire alarm.

3. Both an object and an että-clause (more formal or explicit):

   • Opettaja selitti sen, että palohälytys on tärkeä.
     – The teacher explained the fact that the fire alarm is important.

In your sentence, että palohälytys on tärkeä... itself functions as the content of what was explained, so no separate object is needed.