Kurssilla opettaja näytti, miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi.

In the course the teacher showed how the job application and the CV are written in Finnish.

Breakdown of Kurssilla opettaja näytti, miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi.

• ja: and
• suomi: Finnish
• -lla: on
• miten: how
• opettaja: the teacher
• kirjoittaa: to write
• kurssi: the course
• näyttää: to show
• -ksi: in
• työhakemus: the job application
• ansioluettelo: the CV

Questions & Answers about Kurssilla opettaja näytti, miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi.

Why is it kurssilla and not something like kurssissa? In English we say in the course, so why does Finnish use -lla (“on”)?

Finnish often uses the adessive case (-lla / -llä) for activities, events and courses, where English would use “in”.

• kurssilla literally: on the course, at the course
• It refers to being at/participating in an event or activity.

You might see:

• kurssilla – on/at a course
• tunnilla – in a lesson / in class
• kokouksessa – in a meeting (here -ssa / -ssä, inessive, is also common)

Both kurssilla and kurssissa are possible in some contexts, but:

• kurssilla = at/while attending the course (typical for this sentence)
• kurssissa = more literally inside the course, used less in this type of context

So Kurssilla opettaja näytti… = During the course / In the course, the teacher showed…

Can the word order be “Opettaja näytti kurssilla…” instead of “Kurssilla opettaja näytti…”? Does the meaning change?

Yes, you can say both:

• Kurssilla opettaja näytti…
• Opettaja näytti kurssilla…

The basic meaning is the same. The difference is in emphasis:

• Kurssilla opettaja näytti…
  Puts kurssilla (where/when this happened) in the topic position at the start. It answers something like:

  • What happened during the course? – During the course, the teacher showed…

• Opettaja näytti kurssilla…
  Starts with opettaja as the topic. It answers more:

  • What did the teacher do during the course? – The teacher showed (in/at the course)…

Both are natural; Finnish word order is quite flexible, and the first element usually shows what the speaker wants to foreground.

Why is there a comma before miten: “opettaja näytti, miten…”?

The comma is there because miten introduces a subordinate clause (a dependent clause).

• opettaja näytti – main clause (the teacher showed)
• miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi – subordinate clause (how a job application and a CV are written in Finnish)

In written Finnish, you generally separate a main clause and a following subordinate clause with a comma, especially when the subordinate clause begins with:

• että (that)
• koska (because)
• jotta (so that)
• kun (when)
• jos (if)
• miten (how), etc.

So the structure is:
[Main clause], [miten + subordinate clause].

What exactly is the role of miten here? Can I use kuinka instead?

Miten is an interrogative word that means “how”. Here it introduces an indirect question / content clause:

• miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi
  = how a job application and a CV are written in Finnish
  = how to write a job application and a CV in Finnish

You can generally replace miten with kuinka in this kind of structure:

• opettaja näytti, miten…
• opettaja näytti, kuinka…

Both are correct. Miten is more common and often sounds a bit more neutral and conversational; kuinka can sound slightly more formal or stylistic but is also widely used.

Why is the verb kirjoitetaan (passive) used instead of kirjoittaa (infinitive)? In English we might say “how to write”.

Finnish often uses the present passive to express general instructions, rules or “how to” ideas:

• miten … kirjoitetaan
  = how … is written (in general)
  ≈ how to write …

Using kirjoittaa in the infinitive here would be ungrammatical:

• ✗ miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoittaa suomeksi – not correct

Instead, Finnish prefers:

• miten X kirjoitetaan – how X is (generally) written

So the passive gives a generic, impersonal meaning: we’re talking about how one typically writes such documents, not about one specific person writing them.

How is the form kirjoitetaan built from kirjoittaa? What exactly is this form?

Kirjoitetaan is the present passive of kirjoittaa (to write).

Formation for verbs like kirjoittaa:

1. Take the stem:
   kirjoitta-
2. For the passive, change -tta- / -ttä- to -te- and add -aan:
   • kirjoitta- → kirjoite- + -taan → kirjoitetaan

Function:

• kirjoitetaan = is written / people write / one writes (general, impersonal)
• Present tense passive: used for general instructions, habits, rules, etc.

Examples:

• Suomea puhutaan Suomessa. – Finnish is spoken in Finland.
• Tässä kaupassa myydään hedelmiä. – Fruit is sold in this shop.
• Työhakemus kirjoitetaan selkeästi. – A job application is written clearly.

Why are työhakemus and ansioluettelo in the basic (nominative) form, not in some object case?

In the clause:

• miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi

the verb kirjoitetaan is passive, and the things being written (työhakemus, ansioluettelo) appear in the nominative singular (or plural).

In Finnish passive sentences, what would otherwise be a direct object often appears in nominative, not in a special object case:

• Active:
  Kirjoitan työhakemuksen. – I write the job application.
  → työhakemuksen (object in accusative / “total” object)
• Passive:
  Työhakemus kirjoitetaan… – The job application is written…
  → työhakemus in nominative

So työhakemus ja ansioluettelo are basically like subjects of a passive sentence, and in Finnish that position uses the nominative.

What does suomeksi literally mean, and what is the function of the ending -ksi?

Suomeksi comes from suomi (Finnish language) + the translative case ending -ksi.

Literally it means something like:

• “into Finnish / as Finnish / in the form of Finnish”

Uses of -ksi (translative) include:

• a change of state:
  Hän tuli opettajaksi. – He/she became a teacher.
• expressing a role or result:
  Käännän tämän englanniksi. – I will translate this into English.
• language of expression:
  Puhun suomeksi. – I speak in Finnish.
  Kirjoitamme hakemuksen suomeksi. – We write the application in Finnish.

So suomeksi = “in Finnish (language)” in contexts of speaking, writing or translating.

Could we also say “suomen kielellä” instead of “suomeksi”? Is there a difference?

Yes, both are grammatically correct, but suomeksi is the most natural in this sentence.

• suomeksi (translative) – very common in:

  • puhua suomeksi – to speak in Finnish
  • kirjoittaa suomeksi – to write in Finnish
  • kääntää suomeksi – to translate into Finnish

• suomen kielellä (adessive, literally “with the Finnish language”) sounds more explicit and formal, and is used less often in everyday speech in this context.

You can say:

• Kurssilla opettaja näytti, miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomen kielellä.

but suomeksi is shorter and more idiomatic here.

What do the compound words työhakemus and ansioluettelo literally mean?

Both are compound nouns made from simpler words:

1. työhakemus

   • työ – work, job
   • hakemus – application (from hakea, to apply)
   • työhakemus – literally work application / job application
     → The standard word for a job application.

2. ansioluettelo

   • ansio – merit, credit, accomplishment, qualification
   • luettelo – list, catalogue
   • ansioluettelo – literally list of merits/achievements
     → The standard word for a CV / résumé.

So the Finnish terms are fairly transparent once you know the parts.

Could we use opetti instead of näytti here? What’s the nuance between näyttää and opettaa in this sentence?

Both are possible, but they focus on slightly different aspects:

• näytti (past of näyttää – to show, demonstrate)

  • Kurssilla opettaja näytti, miten…
    → Emphasizes that the teacher demonstrated or showed the process (for example, by writing on the board, using examples, etc.).

• opetti (past of opettaa – to teach)

  • Kurssilla opettaja opetti, miten työhakemus ja ansioluettelo kirjoitetaan suomeksi.
    → Emphasizes the teaching activity in general, not just a single demonstration.

The original sentence suggests more concretely that the teacher showed the students how to write those documents, likely with examples. Using opetti makes it a bit broader: the teacher taught the method. Both are natural in context.