Learn Hardcore Finnish: On myöhäinen ilta, mutta eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita. - It is a late evening, but footsteps can still be heard in the hallway.

On myöhäinen ilta is more neutral and common in narration and descriptions.
Se on myöhäinen ilta sounds like you’re emphasizing or identifying something specific, e.g. correcting someone:
- Se on myöhäinen ilta, ei yö vielä. – It is late evening, not yet night.

So in scene-setting narration, On myöhäinen ilta is the natural choice.

Why is the word order On myöhäinen ilta instead of Myöhäinen ilta on?

Both are grammatically possible, but they have different feels.

On myöhäinen ilta.
Very neutral, typical way to say “It is late evening.”
This is how you normally state the time or describe the situation.
Myöhäinen ilta on.
This sounds unusual or poetic, like emphasizing myöhäinen ilta as a topic:
- Roughly: “As for the late evening, it is (here/now) …”
  You might see this in poetry or stylistically marked text, but not as a normal neutral sentence.

So the standard everyday way is On myöhäinen ilta.

Why is ilta in the basic form (nominative) and not something like illalla or iltana?

Here ilta is a noun used as a subject complement (predicative), so it stays in the basic nominative form:

On ilta. – It is evening.
On myöhäinen ilta. – It is late evening.

Compare:

illalla (adessive) = “in the evening / at evening (time)” – an adverbial of time
- Illalla menemme elokuviin. – In the evening we go to the movies.
iltana (essive) = “as an evening / on (a) certain evening”
- Eräänä iltana – One evening / On one evening

In this sentence we aren’t saying when something happens; we are saying what the time is now. That’s why ilta is nominative: On myöhäinen ilta.

What exactly does mutta do here?

Mutta is the conjunction “but”.

The sentence has two clauses:

On myöhäinen ilta – It is late evening
eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita – footsteps can still be heard in the hallway

Mutta connects them and adds contrast:

You’d expect it to be quiet because it’s late – but you can still hear footsteps.

So mutta introduces that contrast, just like English but.

Why is it eteisessä and not just eteinen?

Eteinen is a noun (“hallway, entrance hall”). To say “in the hallway”, Finnish uses a locative case:

eteinen – hallway (basic form)
eteisessä – in the hallway (inessive case: -ssa / -ssä)

So:

eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita = “(in) the hallway, footsteps can still be heard.”

Using eteinen without a case ending would not show location; it would just be the plain noun “a hallway”.

Why does it say kuuluu and not something like kuulee?

Kuulua and kuulla are different verbs:

kuulla = to hear (active, someone hears)
- Kuulen askeleita. – I hear footsteps.
kuulua = to be heard, to be audible (impersonal, sound exists and can be heard)
- Kuuluu askeleita. – Footsteps are (being) heard / You can hear footsteps.

In eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita:

No person is mentioned.
The focus is on the sound that exists in that place, not on a specific hearer.

This impersonal “sound exists and is audible” is exactly what kuulua expresses.

Why is kuuluu in the singular, even though askeleita is plural?

This is a typical existential / impersonal construction in Finnish.

Eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita.

Here:

The verb kuuluu is 3rd person singular.
Askeleita is in the partitive plural, functioning as an indefinite “subject-like” element (“some footsteps, sounds of stepping”).

In such constructions, Finnish usually:

keeps the verb in 3rd person singular,
and uses partitive for an indefinite or incomplete quantity.

So you do not change the verb to plural here. Kuuluu stays singular even though askeleita implies multiple footsteps.

Why is it askeleita and not askeleet?

Askeleita is the partitive plural of askel (“step, footstep”).

askel – (a) step / footstep
askeleet – the steps / the footsteps (nominative plural, whole set)
askeleita – some (indefinite) footsteps (partitive plural)

In this sentence:

eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita
= “there are still (some) footsteps to be heard in the hallway”

Using partitive plural (askeleita) signals:

an indefinite, ongoing occurrence: some footsteps, footstep sounds
not a specific, completed set of all the footsteps

If you said eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleet, it would sound like:

“the (particular) footsteps can still be heard in the hallway”
(referring to a known, definite set of footsteps)

So askeleita nicely matches the idea of “some/any footsteps (are audible)” rather than “the specific footsteps (are audible)”.

Can I move vielä somewhere else in the clause? For example, Eteisessä vielä kuuluu askeleita?

Yes, vielä (meaning “still / yet”) is quite flexible in word order, though the nuance can shift slightly.

Eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita.
Neutral: “Footsteps can still be heard in the hallway.”
Eteisessä vielä kuuluu askeleita.
Emphasis shifts a bit onto vielä: “(Even) still, there are footsteps heard in the hallway.”
It can sound slightly more surprised or contrastive, depending on context.

Other possible positions:

Vielä eteisessä kuuluu askeleita. – Emphasizes “still in the hallway” (maybe not elsewhere).
Eteisessä kuuluu askeleita vielä. – Possible in speech, but more marked; vielä feels afterthought-like.

The version in your sentence, eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita, is the most neutral and common.

What is the literal structure and “word‑for‑word” sense of the whole Finnish sentence?

Breaking it down:

On – is
myöhäinen – late
ilta – evening

→ On myöhäinen ilta = “(It) is late evening.”

mutta – but
eteisessä – in-the-hallway (inessive case)
kuuluu – is-heard / can-be-heard
vielä – still
askeleita – (some) footsteps (partitive plural)

→ mutta eteisessä kuuluu vielä askeleita
≈ “but in the hallway (there) is (the sound of) still some footsteps (to be heard).”

Natural English: “It is late evening, but you can still hear footsteps in the hallway.”