Learn Hardcore Finnish: Saari on rauhallinen, eikä siellä ole melua. - The island is peaceful, and there is no noise there.

Eikä is a special conjunction that combines ja (and) + ei (not) into one word. It means something like "and not" / "and there is no…" and is very natural here.

Saari on rauhallinen, eikä siellä ole melua.
= The island is peaceful, and there is no noise there (either).

You could technically say:

Saari on rauhallinen, ja siellä ei ole melua.

This is grammatically fine, but eikä sounds smoother and is preferred in this type of negative addition, especially when the two clauses are closely related.

You generally use eikä when:

you are joining two clauses with and,
the second clause is negative,
and the negative verb is ei (or its forms).

Why is it melua and not melu?

Melua is the partitive singular of melu (noise). In Finnish, the partitive is used in several important situations, and one of the big ones is:

After there is / there is no type sentences when talking about an indefinite amount of something, especially in negative sentences.

Here, we’re saying “there is no noise (at all)” in a general, non-countable way.

Siellä on melua. – There is (some) noise there.
Siellä ei ole melua. – There is no noise there.

Using melu (nominative) would be ungrammatical in this structure. So after olla in these existential sentences (especially with ei ole), you expect the partitive: melua, ihmisiä, vettä, etc.

Why is it ei ole and not ei on?

In Finnish, negation is expressed by a special negative verb (en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät) plus the main verb in a special form (the so‑called “connegative” form).

For olla (to be):

on – affirmative (present, 3rd person singular)
ei ole – negative (present, 3rd person singular)

Pattern:

Hän on kotona. – He/She is at home.
Hän ei ole kotona. – He/She is not at home.
Siellä on melua. – There is noise there.
Siellä ei ole melua. – There is no noise there.

So when you negate on, it changes to ei ole, not ei on.

What does siellä add? Could I just say eikä ole melua?

Siellä means “there (in that place)” and refers back to the island.

Saari on rauhallinen, eikä siellä ole melua.
= The island is peaceful, and there is no noise *there.*

If you say just:

… eikä ole melua.

it’s still understandable in context, but it sounds a bit bare and less natural, because Finnish generally likes to state a location in existential sentences (olla + something + somewhere).

The typical pattern is:

Siellä on X. / Siellä ei ole X. – There is (no) X there.

So siellä anchors the lack of noise to the island as a place.

What’s the difference between siellä, tuolla, and siinä?

All three can be translated as "there", but they feel different:

siellä – “there” as in that place (not here), more general location, often not in sight
- Saari on rauhallinen. Siellä ei ole melua. – The island is peaceful. There is no noise there.
tuolla – “over there”, usually visible or pointable, with a bit of distance
- Tuolla saarella ei ole melua. – On that island over there, there is no noise.
siinä – “there, in/at that exact spot”, very specific and often close or previously identified precisely
- Siinä saaren rannassa ei ole melua. – Right there on the shore of the island, there is no noise.

In this sentence, siellä is best, because we’re talking about the island as a general place, not pointing at it or a specific tiny spot.

Why is there a comma before eikä?

In Finnish, when you join two independent clauses (two full sentences) with a conjunction like ja, mutta, tai, eikä, you usually put a comma before the conjunction.

Here we have:

Saari on rauhallinen. – The island is peaceful.
Siellä ei ole melua. – There is no noise there.

They’re combined as:

Saari on rauhallinen, eikä siellä ole melua.

So the comma marks the boundary between two full clauses, just as you might use a comma + “and” in English when joining two sentences.

Why is it rauhallinen and not something like rauhallista?

Rauhallinen is a predicate adjective describing the subject saari (the island).

In a normal affirmative sentence with olla:

the subject is in nominative: saari
the predicate adjective also uses nominative: rauhallinen

So:

Saari on rauhallinen. – The island is peaceful.

You’d use the partitive (rauhallista) in other, more special contexts (e.g. to express incompleteness or in certain existential/experience structures), but not in this straightforward “X is Y” description.

For plural, both go to plural nominative:

Saaret ovat rauhallisia. – The islands are peaceful.

Could the word order be different, like Saari on rauhallinen, ja melua ei ole siellä?

Yes, you can change the word order and it will still be grammatical, but it may sound a bit less natural or a bit more marked in emphasis.

Some variants:

Saari on rauhallinen, eikä melua ole siellä.
– OK, now melua is earlier, slightly emphasizing “there is no noise (there)”.
Saari on rauhallinen, ja siellä ei ole melua.
– Grammatically fine, but loses the compact eikä form.
Siellä ei ole melua, ja saari on rauhallinen.
– Also grammatical, but the logic flows “There is no noise there, and the island is peaceful”, which is a slightly different emphasis.

The original:

Saari on rauhallinen, eikä siellä ole melua.

is very natural and well‑balanced: first the positive description, then an additional negative fact about the same place.

What exactly does rauhallinen mean compared to hiljainen?

Both are often translated as “quiet”, but they have different nuances:

rauhallinen – peaceful, calm, tranquil
- Not just lack of sound, but a calm atmosphere, no stress, no disturbance.
- Rauhallinen saari – a peaceful island (relaxed, not busy, probably quiet).
hiljainen – quiet, silent
- Focuses more directly on low volume / little sound.
- Hiljainen saari – a quiet island (not much noise; maybe nobody talking, little traffic).

In this sentence, rauhallinen suggests not only the absence of noise but also a generally peaceful, calm environment, which fits well with eikä siellä ole melua.