Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?

Breakdown of Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?

olla
to be
meluisa
noisy
liian
too
vai
or
sopiva
suitable
kauppakeskus
the shopping mall
sinusta
you think
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?

Why does the sentence start with Onko instead of On?

Finnish forms yes–no questions by adding the clitic -ko / -kö to a word, most often the verb.

  • On = is
  • Onko = is it? / is (in question form)

So:

  • Kauppakeskus on meluisa. = The shopping centre is noisy.
  • Onko kauppakeskus meluisa? = Is the shopping centre noisy?

Here, onko is simply on + ko, turning the statement into a question.


What does sinusta literally mean, and why is it used here?

Literally, sinusta is the elative case of sinä (you):

  • sinä = you (nominative)
  • sinusta = out of you / from you (elative)

In this structure, X + sta/stä can mean “in X’s opinion”.
So:

  • minusta = in my opinion
  • sinusta = in your opinion
  • meistä = in our opinion

The sentence:

  • Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?

literally is like:

  • Is the shopping centre, from your point of view, too noisy or suitable?

So sinusta here is an idiomatic way to say “in your opinion”.


Could I replace sinusta with mielestäsi? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can:

  • Onko kauppakeskus mielestäsi liian meluisa vai sopiva?

mielestäsi = in your opinion, according to your mind/view
It’s mieli (mind) + -stä (elative) + -si (your).

Difference in feel:

  • sinusta is very common, short, and a bit more colloquial / neutral.
  • mielestäsi is also common and slightly more explicit/formal: it literally mentions mind, opinion.

Both are perfectly correct and natural. In many contexts they are interchangeable.


Is the word order “Onko kauppakeskus sinusta…” fixed, or could I say “Onko sinusta kauppakeskus…”?

The word order is not completely fixed. You can say:

  1. Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?
  2. Onko sinusta kauppakeskus liian meluisa vai sopiva?

Both are grammatically correct. The difference is nuance and emphasis:

  • Version 1 (the original) is the most neutral. It presents the subject (kauppakeskus) immediately and then asks for your view of it.
  • Version 2 puts more emphasis on sinusta (“for you / in your opinion”), as if contrasting your opinion with other people’s or highlighting that we’re specifically interested in your point of view.

In everyday speech, version 1 is more typical in this exact kind of question.


Why are meluisa and sopiva in this form (no case ending)? Shouldn’t they take some case?

Meluisa (noisy) and sopiva (suitable) are predicate adjectives describing the subject kauppakeskus with the verb olla (to be).

With olla:

  • The subject is in nominative:
    • kauppakeskus (the shopping centre)
  • The adjectives describing the subject also go in nominative, agreeing with it:
    • meluisa, sopiva

So:

  • Kauppakeskus on meluisa. = The shopping centre is noisy.
  • Onko kauppakeskus sopiva? = Is the shopping centre suitable?

No extra ending here: nominative singular adjectives typically end in -a/-ä or -i etc. They only change form if some other case is required (e.g. partitive, genitive, translative).


Why do we say liian meluisa and not something like liia meluisa or use a different word order?

Liian is a separate adverb meaning “too” (in the sense of excessively).

  • liian meluisa = too noisy
  • liian kallis = too expensive
  • liian pieni = too small

In Finnish, adverbs like liian usually come before the adjective they modify, just like in English (“too noisy,” not “noisy too”).

So the correct order is:

  • liian meluisa, not meluisa liian (which would sound odd).
  • Onko se liian meluisa? = Is it too noisy?

There’s no shortened form like liia; the word is liian.


Could the adjectives be in the partitive, like liian meluisaa?

They could, but that would slightly change the nuance and is not typical in this exact sentence.

General rule:

  • With olla (to be)
    • predicate adjective, nominative is standard:
      • Kauppakeskus on meluisa.
  • Partitive can appear if the state is seen as incomplete, temporary, or somewhat vague, or in some stylistic/colloquial uses.

However, in a neutral question like:

  • Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?

nominative meluisa / sopiva is the normal choice.
Saying liian meluisaa here would sound non-standard or at least unusual, and could give a slightly “incomplete” or “somewhat noisy” type nuance that doesn’t fit well with the clear liian (“too”) + comparison.

So: for learners, stick to liian meluisa in this structure.


What’s the difference between vai and tai here? Why is it vai?

Finnish distinguishes two main “or” words:

  • vai – used in direct questions where you’re asking for a choice between alternatives (often mutually exclusive)
  • tai – used in statements, indirect questions, and when you’re not explicitly asking the listener to choose

In our sentence:

  • Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?

we have a direct question offering two clear alternatives:

  • too noisy
  • (or) suitable

So vai is the correct conjunction. If you said tai instead, it would sound odd or ungrammatical in this yes–no-type choice question.


What exactly does kauppakeskus mean? Is it different from a “mall” or a “shopping center”?

Kauppakeskus is a compound noun:

  • kauppa = shop, store, trade
  • keskus = center

So kauppakeskus = shopping centre / mall – a building or complex with many shops.

Notes:

  • It’s roughly the same as English “shopping centre” or “mall”; context decides which English term fits better.
  • Another word you might see is ostoskeskus, which also means “shopping centre.” Kauppakeskus is very common in modern usage.

In the sentence, kauppakeskus is in the nominative singular as the subject.


Why don’t we say “se kauppakeskus” or just “se” (“it”) in the sentence?

In Finnish, you usually don’t need an extra pronoun when the noun itself is already the subject:

  • Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?
    = Is the shopping centre, in your opinion, too noisy or suitable?

If you want to refer back to a previously mentioned shopping centre without naming it again, you could use se:

  • Onko se sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?
    = Do you think it is too noisy or suitable?

But saying Onko se kauppakeskus sinusta… in this sentence would be strange: it’d sound like you’re contrasting that shopping centre with some other, or picking out a specific one in a marked way.
The simple noun kauppakeskus works best here.


How could I answer this question naturally in Finnish?

Common short answers use minusta (“in my opinion”) plus a clause:

  • Minusta se on liian meluisa.
    In my opinion it is too noisy.

  • Minusta se on ihan sopiva.
    I think it’s quite suitable.

Longer or more explicit options:

  • Minusta kauppakeskus on liian meluisa.
  • Minun mielestäni kauppakeskus on sopiva. (slightly more formal / explicit)

If you just want a very short spoken answer, you might also hear:

  • Liian meluisa.
  • Sopiva.

But full sentences with minusta are a good model for learners.


Is there a more literal English way to think of “Onko kauppakeskus sinusta liian meluisa vai sopiva?” to help remember the structure?

A somewhat literal, structure-mirroring English version would be:

  • “Is the shopping centre, from you / out of you, too noisy or suitable?”

Of course, idiomatic English is:

  • “Do you think the shopping centre is too noisy or (is it) suitable?”

So you can map it roughly as:

  • Onko = is it?
  • kauppakeskus = the shopping centre
  • sinusta = (in) your opinion / from your point of view
  • liian meluisa = too noisy
  • vai sopiva = or suitable

Remember: [person] + sta/stä often = “in [person]’s opinion”, especially with olla.