Kuntosalin ohjaaja on tarkka tekniikasta ja neuvoo hitaasti.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Kuntosalin ohjaaja on tarkka tekniikasta ja neuvoo hitaasti.

Why is kuntosalin in the genitive case (-n), and what does it mean here?

Kuntosalin is the genitive singular of kuntosali (“gym”).

In this sentence it expresses possession/association:

  • kuntosalin ohjaaja = the gym’s instructor / the instructor of the gym

In Finnish, a noun in the genitive placed before another noun often works like “X’s Y” or “the Y of X”:

  • koulun piha = the school’s yard / school yard
  • kaverin auto = friend’s car / my friend’s car

So kuntosalin ohjaaja is a natural way to say “the instructor who belongs to / works at the gym”.


Could you also say kuntosaliohjaaja, and is there any difference from kuntosalin ohjaaja?

Yes, you can say kuntosaliohjaaja. This is a compound word:

  • kuntosali (gym) + ohjaaja (instructor) → kuntosaliohjaaja (gym instructor)

Differences in nuance:

  • kuntosalin ohjaaja = literally the gym’s instructor; it sounds a bit more concrete and specific, like the instructor of that particular gym.
  • kuntosaliohjaaja = a gym instructor (a person whose job is to instruct in gyms); it can sound a bit more like a job title.

In many real-life contexts, both would be understood the same way.


Why is tekniikasta in the -sta form (elative case), and what does olla tarkka + elative mean?

Tekniikasta is the elative singular of tekniikka (“technique”). The elative typically means “from / out of”, but with certain words it gets more abstract meanings like “about / regarding / in terms of”.

The adjective tarkka (“careful, precise, strict”) often appears in the pattern:

  • olla tarkka + elative (olla tarkka jostakin)

This pattern means “to be strict/particular about something”:

  • olen tarkka rahankäytöstä = I’m particular about my spending
  • opettaja on tarkka oikeinkirjoituksesta = the teacher is strict about spelling

So tarkka tekniikasta ≈ “strict / particular about technique”. The -sta is required here by the idiomatic rection of the adjective tarkka.


Why can’t we say *tarkka tekniikkaan or *tarkka tekniikkaa instead of tarkka tekniikasta?

Because in Finnish many adjectives and verbs govern specific cases, and using another case sounds incorrect or changes the meaning.

For tarkka in this sense (“strict/particular about”), the normal pattern is:

  • tarkka + elative (-sta/-stä): tarkka tekniikasta, tarkka säännöistä, tarkka ajankäytöstä

Other cases would either sound wrong or mean something else:

  • *tarkka tekniikkaan (illative) doesn’t fit the idiom at all.
  • *tarkka tekniikkaa (partitive) would also be unidiomatic; it’s not how tarkka works in this meaning.

So here it’s really about fixed case government: “to be strict about X” = olla tarkka X:stä.


What exactly does tarkka mean here, and how does it compare to English words like “strict” or “careful”?

Tarkka can mean:

  • careful, meticulous, precise
    • tarkka laskelma = an accurate calculation
  • strict, particular (about rules, behaviour, quality)
    • tarkka ajoissa olemisesta = very particular about being on time

In on tarkka tekniikasta, tarkka combines these ideas:

  • the instructor is demanding about technique (won’t let sloppy form pass), and
  • pays close attention to it.

So depending on context, you might translate tarkka as “strict”, “particular”, “fussy”, “meticulous”, or “very careful”. Here it’s something like “very particular / strict about technique”.


Why doesn’t the sentence say kuntosalin ohjaaja on tarkka tekniikasta ja hän neuvoo hitaasti? Where did hän (“he/she”) go?

In Finnish, if two clauses share the same subject, it’s very common to mention the subject only once and then just continue with the verb:

  • Kuntosalin ohjaaja on tarkka tekniikasta ja neuvoo hitaasti.
    • Subject is kuntosalin ohjaaja for both on and neuvoo.

You could say … ja hän neuvoo hitaasti, and it would still be correct, but adding hän is usually only done if you want to emphasize the subject, create a contrast, or avoid ambiguity.

Here, it’s perfectly clear that neuvoo refers to kuntosalin ohjaaja, so hän is simply dropped as redundant.


How does the conjunction ja work here? Is this one sentence or two?

Ja means “and”, and here it connects two predicates (two things that the same subject does):

  • (Kuntosalin ohjaaja) on tarkka tekniikasta
  • (Kuntosalin ohjaaja) neuvoo hitaasti

This is still one sentence, but with a compound predicate:

  • Subject: kuntosalin ohjaaja
  • Predicate 1: on tarkka tekniikasta
  • Predicate 2: neuvoo hitaasti

In English you’d also typically keep this as one sentence joined by “and”.


What form is neuvoo, and what does it tell us about time or aspect?

Neuvoo is the 3rd person singular present tense of the verb neuvoa (“to advise, to give guidance, to instruct”).

In Finnish, the present tense is used for:

  • current actions (He is now instructing slowly), and
  • general/habitual behaviour (He generally instructs slowly).

Context usually tells which is meant. In this sentence, it most naturally describes a typical way the instructor behaves, not just a one-time event.

If you wanted to talk about the past, you’d use the past tense: neuvoi hitaasti (“instructed slowly”).


How is hitaasti formed, and what is the difference between hidas and hitaasti?

Hidas is an adjective: slow (describes a noun).
Hitaasti is an adverb: slowly (describes a verb, adjective, or another adverb).

Finnish often forms adverbs from adjectives by adding -sti to the stem:

  • hidashitaasti (slow → slowly)
  • nopeanopeasti (fast → quickly)
  • varmavarmasti (certain → certainly/for sure)

So in neuvoo hitaasti, hitaasti modifies neuvoo, describing how the instructor gives guidance: in a slow, unhurried way.


Is the word order kuntosalin ohjaaja fixed, or could you say ohjaaja kuntosalin?

The natural order is kuntosalin ohjaaja: genitive attribute first, then the head noun.

  • kuntosalin (gym’s) + ohjaaja (instructor) → “the gym’s instructor”

Putting it as *ohjaaja kuntosalin would sound wrong or at least extremely odd in standard Finnish. With genitive + noun combinations that mean “X’s Y / Y of X”, the genitive almost always comes first:

  • opettajan kirja = the teacher’s book
  • koiran häntä = the dog’s tail

So the order in the sentence is the normal, grammatical one.