Breakdown of Hän hyväksyi työn, vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka.
Questions & Answers about Hän hyväksyi työn, vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka.
In this sentence, vaikka means “although / even though” and introduces a concessive clause:
- Hän hyväksyi työn, vaikka työaika oli pitkä...
= He/She accepted the job, *although the working hours were long...*
Key contrasts:
- vaikka = although, even though (something is true despite another fact)
- mutta = but (just links two statements; no subordinate clause)
- Työaika oli pitkä, mutta hän hyväksyi työn.
- koska = because (gives a reason)
- Hän hyväksyi työn, koska palkka oli hyvä. = He/She accepted the job because the pay was good.
So vaikka explicitly encodes the idea “in spite of that,” which English often expresses with although, even though, or sometimes just but + tone of voice.
Finnish has only one third-person singular pronoun: hän.
- hän = he or she (gender-neutral)
- he = they (plural people)
So Hän hyväksyi työn can mean either:
- He accepted the job
or - She accepted the job
The language simply doesn’t mark gender in pronouns the way English does.
This is about the object case.
- työn is in the -n object form (often called genitive/accusative), which usually means:
- the action is completed / whole
- the object is seen as a whole thing
So:
- Hän hyväksyi työn.
= He/She accepted the job (fully, as a single decision).
If you used työtä (partitive), it would suggest an ongoing, incomplete, or partial action, which doesn’t fit well with hyväksyä (to accept) in this context. Accepting something is typically a single, complete act, so the total object työn is natural.
Compare:
- Hän söi omenan. = He/She ate the (whole) apple.
- Hän söi omenaa. = He/She was eating (some) apple. (ongoing / partial)
Hyväksyi työn is like söi omenan in that sense: a completed decision about a whole item.
All three are in the simple past (often called the imperfect in Finnish grammar):
- hyväksyi (from hyväksyä) = accepted
- oli (from olla) = was
- maksettiin (from maksaa, in passive) = was paid / they paid
Finnish has one simple past tense used for most past events, corresponding roughly to English “did / was / were”. English distinctions like:
- I accepted vs. I have accepted vs. I was accepting
are usually all expressed with that same imperfect tense in Finnish, context doing the rest.
Both patterns exist, but they emphasize slightly different things:
työaika oli pitkä
Literally: the working time was long- Focuses on the overall length of the workday/work shift or working schedule as a single block.
työajat olivat pitkät
Literally: the working hours were long- Emphasizes the hours (plural), maybe more like “the shifts / the schedule” are long.
In everyday language, työaika oli pitkä is very natural and compact, and it treats the working time as one continuous unit, which fits well with “long hours” in English in this sentence.
ylityöstä is:
- Stem: ylityö = overtime (work)
- Case: elative (-sta / -stä) → ylityöstä
The elative often means “from, out of, about, for”, and some verbs simply require it with certain meanings. With maksaa (to pay), a common pattern is:
- maksaa palkkaa jostakin = to pay wages/salary for something
So:
- ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka
literally: A bad wage was paid *for overtime.*
The -sta here is not physical “out of” but rather part of a fixed government-phrase pattern:
maksetaan palkkaa jostakin = pay (someone) for something.
maksettiin is the past tense passive of maksaa (to pay).
- (he) maksavat palkan = they pay the wage
- palkka maksetaan = the wage is paid / they pay the wage (general)
- palkka maksettiin = the wage was paid / they paid the wage
Characteristics of the Finnish passive (often called impersonal):
- It doesn’t show who does the action (like English “they”, “one”, or a generic “you”).
- The verb form changes (here: maksettiin, not maksattiin or maksoivat).
- The logical subject is usually left out entirely.
So ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka is best understood as:
- They paid a bad wage for overtime,
or - A bad wage was paid for overtime.
This is about total vs. partitive object again.
- huono palkka (nominative) as the object of a passive, completed action:
- ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka
→ A specific, whole wage was paid.
- ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka
- huonoa palkkaa (partitive) would present the pay as:
- ongoing, incomplete, or a kind of indefinite amount: they were paying bad pay (in general).
Subtle nuance:
- huono palkka → One concrete wage level or pay package was bad.
- huonoa palkkaa → The pay for overtime was (generally) bad / low, more like a quality over time.
In many contexts both are possible, but here huono palkka fits the idea of a definite job offer with a particular (bad) overtime pay attached to it.
Yes. Finnish word order is relatively flexible, especially between clauses. You can say:
- Vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka, hän hyväksyi työn.
This is also very natural and might even sound more “bookish” or “formal.” Differences:
- Hän hyväksyi työn, vaikka ...
→ Starts with the main fact (he/she accepted), then adds the surprising background. - Vaikka ..., hän hyväksyi työn.
→ Starts by setting up the problem, then gives the unexpected outcome.
Both are correct; choice is mainly about emphasis and style.
Because two separate clauses are being joined:
- työaika oli pitkä = the working hours were long
- ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka = a bad wage was paid for overtime
The conjunction ja (“and”) connects these two facts:
- ... vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka.
If you removed ja, you’d have:
- vaikka työaika oli pitkä, ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka.
This would sound like “although the working hours were long, a bad wage was paid for overtime”, which breaks the logic: the “although” should contrast with his/her accepting the job, not with the overtime pay itself.
So we need ja to show both negative things are part of the same “although” package:
- Although A and B were bad, he/she still accepted the job.
Yes, both are common compound nouns:
työaika
- työ = work
- aika = time → työaika = working time / working hours
ylityö
- yli = over
- työ = work → ylityö = overtime work
Finnish very often creates new meanings by compounding basic nouns like this. Recognizing parts:
- helps with vocabulary guessing
- makes long Finnish words less scary (they’re often just smaller words glued together).
A few natural alternatives, with small stylistic differences:
Hän otti työn vastaan, vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka.
- otti työn vastaan = accepted the job (literally took the job in)
Hän suostui työhön, vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka.
- suostui työhön = agreed to take the job
Vaikka työaika oli pitkä ja ylityöstä maksettiin huono palkka, hän hyväksyi työn.
- Same meaning, but with the vaikka-clause first for emphasis.
All keep the same overall meaning, but:
- hyväksyi työn is somewhat neutral, maybe a bit formal (accepted).
- otti työn vastaan sounds very common and colloquial.
- suostui työhön emphasizes agreeing / consenting rather than neutral acceptance.