Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat, mutta ne toimivat vielä hyvin.

These rain clothes are old, but they still work well.

Breakdown of Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat, mutta ne toimivat vielä hyvin.

• olla: to be
• vanha: old
• mutta: but
• toimia: to work
• hyvin: well
• vielä: still
• ne: they
• nämä: these
• sadevaate: the rainwear

Questions & Answers about Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat, mutta ne toimivat vielä hyvin.

Why is it nämä sadevaatteet and not something like nämä sadevaateet?

The base word is sadevaate (rain garment).

• vaate (garment) → plural nominative: vaatteet
  (consonant gradation: t doubles to tt before the plural ending -et)
• So sadevaate → sadevaatteet (rain garments / rain clothes)

Therefore the correct plural form is:

• nämä sadevaatteet = these rain clothes

There’s no form sadevaateet in correct Finnish; the consonant gradation is required: vaate → vaatteet → sadevaate → sadevaatteet.

Why is ovat used instead of on?

Ovat is the 3rd person plural form of the verb olla (to be):

• hän on = he/she is
• he ovat = they are

The subject nämä sadevaatteet is grammatically plural (ends in -t), so the verb must also be plural:

• Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat.
  These rain clothes are old.

Even though “rain clothes” refers to one set of clothing, Finnish grammar follows the form: if the noun is in plural, you use ovat, not on.

If you wanted a singular verb, you would need a singular subject, e.g.:

• Tämä sadeasu on vanha.
  This rain outfit is old.

Why is the adjective vanhat (plural) and not vanha?

In Finnish, a predicative adjective (an adjective after to be) usually agrees with the subject in number (singular/plural) and case.

• Subject: nämä sadevaatteet (plural nominative)
• Predicate adjective: vanhat (plural nominative)

So:

• Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat.
  These rain clothes are old.

If the subject were singular, the adjective would also be singular:

• Tämä sadevaate on vanha.
  This rain garment is old.

Could we also say Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhoja? What’s the difference between ovat vanhat and ovat vanhoja?

Yes, Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhoja is grammatically possible, but there’s a nuance.

• ovat vanhat — adjective in nominative plural
  
  • Tends to sound more definite: they are (the) old ones, they are clearly old, describing the whole set as a known, established group of “old rain clothes”.
• ovat vanhoja — adjective in partitive plural
  
  • Often feels more descriptive or open‑ended, like you’re commenting on their quality: they are (somewhat/quite) old.
  • Can sound a bit more neutral or less “final”.

In your sentence, ovat vanhat fits well because you’re describing a specific, identifiable set of rain clothes, almost like saying: These rain clothes are (already) old ones, but they still work well.

Why do we switch from nämä to ne in the second part instead of repeating nämä?

• nämä = these (near the speaker, more demonstrative)
• ne = they / those (3rd person plural pronoun for things)

In the first clause, nämä points directly to the clothes you’re talking about:

• Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat…
  These rain clothes are old…

In the second clause, you no longer need to repeat these rain clothes, so you replace it with a pronoun:

• …mutta ne toimivat vielä hyvin.
  …but they still work well.

Using ne here is natural because you are now just referring back to an already mentioned plural noun. You could say mutta nämä toimivat vielä hyvin, but that would put extra emphasis on these ones in particular, which is not needed.

What is the difference between nämä and ne in general?

They both refer to plural things, but their typical uses are slightly different:

• nämä
  
  • Demonstrative: these (here)
  • Stronger sense of “this/these ones near me”.
  • Often used directly with a noun: nämä sadevaatteet (these rain clothes).
• ne
  
  • Basic 3rd person plural pronoun: they / them
  • Used for any plural inanimate subject or object already known in the context:
    • Missä sadevaatteet ovat? – Ne ovat tuolla.
      Where are the rain clothes? – They’re over there.

In your sentence, nämä introduces the topic, and ne then refers back to it in a more neutral pronoun form.

Why do we need ne at all? Could we just say mutta toimivat vielä hyvin?

In standard Finnish, you cannot drop the 3rd person subject pronoun the way you can drop I/you (because the verb form doesn’t show person clearly enough on its own).

• Correct: …mutta ne toimivat vielä hyvin.
• Incorrect / very non‑standard: …mutta toimivat vielä hyvin.

Dropping minä or sinä is normal:

• (Minä) tulen myöhemmin. – I’ll come later.
• (Sinä) puhut hyvin suomea. – You speak Finnish well.

But with he/ne, the pronoun usually must be present in neutral standard language:

• He tulevat. – They (people) are coming.
• Ne toimivat. – They (things) work.

What exactly does toimia mean here? Is it literally “to function”?

Yes, toimia literally means to function, to work (properly).

In this sentence:

• ne toimivat vielä hyvin = they still work well / they still function well

Common uses of toimia:

• A device working:
  
  • Tietokone toimii. – The computer works / is functioning.
• A plan or method working:
  
  • Suunnitelma toimii. – The plan works.
• A piece of equipment or clothing doing its job:
  
  • Nämä kengät toimivat hyvin talvella. – These shoes work well in winter.

Don’t use toimia for working as a job; that’s työskennellä:

• Hän työskentelee opettajana. – He/She works as a teacher.

What does vielä mean here, and where can it appear in the sentence?

In this sentence, vielä means “still”:

• ne toimivat vielä hyvin = they still work well

Key points about vielä:

1. Positive sentence: often “still”
   • Hän asuu vielä Suomessa. – He/She still lives in Finland.
2. Negative sentence: often “yet”
   • Hän ei asu vielä Suomessa. – He/She doesn’t live in Finland yet.

Position in the sentence is somewhat flexible, but typical and most neutral is:

• Verb + vielä + adverb/adjective
  
  • toimivat vielä hyvin
  • on vielä nuori – is still young

You could also say ne vielä toimivat hyvin, which has a slightly stronger emphasis on vielä (“they still work well (surprisingly)”).

Why is it hyvin and not hyvästi? Aren’t both from hyvä (“good”)?

Both come from hyvä, but their usage is different today.

• hyvin
  
  • The normal adverb: “well, very”
  • ne toimivat hyvin – they work well
  • Hän puhuu hyvin suomea. – He/She speaks Finnish well.
• hyvästi
  • Historically also an adverb meaning “well”, but in modern Finnish it’s mostly used in fixed expressions, especially:
    • Hyvästi! – Farewell!

So in almost all modern contexts where English uses “well”, you should choose hyvin, not hyvästi.

Why is sadevaatteet plural? Could we also say sadevaate in singular to mean “rain clothes”?

You can say sadevaate (rain garment) in singular, but in real usage:

• sadevaatteet is more common when you mean a set of rain gear: jacket + pants, or several pieces.
• English “clothes” is plural, and Finnish vaatteet (clothes) is also plural:
  • vaate = garment
  • vaatteet = clothes

So:

• sadevaate = one rain garment (for example, just a jacket)
• sadevaatteet = rain clothes (often the whole outfit)

In your sentence, nämä sadevaatteet is naturally plural because you’re talking about “these rain clothes” as a set.

Why is there a comma before mutta?

In Finnish, a comma is normally used before coordinating conjunctions like:

• ja (and)
• mutta (but)
• tai (or)

when they join two independent clauses (each with its own subject and verb):

• Clause 1: Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat
  (subject: nämä sadevaatteet, verb: ovat)
• Clause 2: ne toimivat vielä hyvin
  (subject: ne, verb: toimivat)

Since each part could stand as a sentence on its own, they are separated by a comma:

• Nämä sadevaatteet ovat vanhat, mutta ne toimivat vielä hyvin.