Learn Hardcore Finnish: Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä, vaikka työaika olisi joustava. - You should not do too much overtime, even if the working hours are flexible.

Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä, vaikka työaika olisi joustava.

You should not do too much overtime, even if the working hours are flexible.

Breakdown of Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä, vaikka työaika olisi joustava.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä, vaikka työaika olisi joustava.

What is the structure of “Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä”, and what does it literally correspond to?

“Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä” corresponds to English “you shouldn’t do”.

Grammatically:

sinun = “your / of you” (genitive form of sinä, “you”)
ei = negative verb (3rd person singular here)
pitäisi = conditional of pitää (“should, ought to”)
tehdä = basic infinitive of tehdä (“to do”)

The construction [genitive + (ei) pitäisi + infinitive] is a common way to say “X should / shouldn’t do Y” in Finnish:

Minun pitäisi nukkua. – I should sleep.
Hänen ei pitäisi juoda niin paljon kahvia. – He/She shouldn’t drink so much coffee.

So “Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä” literally is something like “(for) you it should not be to do”, but idiomatically: “you shouldn’t do”.

Why is it “sinun” and not “sinä” in this sentence?

The verb pitää in the “should/ought to” meaning takes its experiencer (the person who should do something) in the genitive case, not in the nominative.

So you always say:

minun pitäisi (not minä pitäisi) – I should
sinun pitäisi (not sinä pitäisi) – you should
hänen pitäisi – he/she should
meidän pitäisi – we should

In the negative:

minun ei pitäisi – I shouldn’t
sinun ei pitäisi – you shouldn’t

This is just how this construction works in Finnish: pitää + genitive subject + infinitive expresses obligation or recommendation.

Can I leave out “sinun” and just say “Ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä…”?

Yes, you can omit “sinun”.

Then the meaning becomes more impersonal / general, roughly “(One) shouldn’t do too much overtime…” or “You shouldn’t do too much overtime” in the generic-English “you” sense.

Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä…
→ specifically addressed to you.
Ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä…
→ more like a general guideline or rule, not aimed at one specific person.

Both are grammatically correct; the choice depends on how personal you want to sound.

What is the difference between “Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä” and “Älä tee liikaa ylityötä”?

Both can be translated as “You shouldn’t do too much overtime”, but the tone is different:

Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä.
- Softer, more advisory: “You really shouldn’t / It’s not a good idea for you to…”
- Often used when giving polite advice, expressing concern, or a recommendation.
Älä tee liikaa ylityötä.
- Direct negative imperative: “Don’t do too much overtime.”
- Sounds more like an order or a strong warning.

So “ei pitäisi” feels more like advice; “älä + verb” feels more like a command or prohibition.

Why is “tehdä” in the basic infinitive form here?

After pitäisi (and similar “modal” verbs), the following verb is normally in the basic infinitive (1st infinitive), which ends in -a/-ä:

Sinun pitäisi nukkua. – You should sleep.
Teidän pitäisi syödä enemmän. – You (pl.) should eat more.
Hänen ei pitäisi juoda niin paljon. – He/She shouldn’t drink so much.
Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä. – You shouldn’t do too much overtime.

So “pitäisi + tehdä” is the natural combination, exactly like English “should do”, where “do” also appears in its base form after “should.”

Why is “ylityötä” in the partitive case?

“Ylityötä” is the partitive singular of “ylityö” (“overtime work”).

There are two main reasons for the partitive here:

Unspecified / not counted amount of an activity
With verbs like tehdä (“do, make”) and nouns of activity, Finnish often uses the partitive to talk about doing some (unspecified) amount of that activity:
- tehdä työtä – to do work
- tehdä kotitöitä – to do housework
- tehdä ylityötä – to do overtime
Partitive after quantifiers like “liikaa”
Words expressing quantity such as paljon (“a lot of”), vähän (“a little”), liikaa (“too much/too many”) usually require the noun to be in the partitive:
- liikaa kahvia – too much coffee
- liikaa työtä – too much work
- liikaa ylityötä – too much overtime

So “tehdä liikaa ylityötä” is exactly the expected structure: verb + quantifier + partitive noun.

What is the difference between “liikaa” and “liian paljon”?

Both can usually be translated as “too much / too many”, and in many contexts they are interchangeable.

liikaa
- Single word, adverb / quantifier: “too much” / “too many”.
- Common with verbs and with nouns in the partitive:
  - Teen liikaa töitä. – I work too much.
  - Join liikaa kahvia. – I drank too much coffee.
  - Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä. – You shouldn’t do too much overtime.
liian paljon
- Literally: “too much” (liian = “too”, paljon = “much/a lot”).
- Also common with verbs and partitive nouns:
  - Teen liian paljon töitä. – I work too much.
  - Join liian paljon kahvia. – I drank too much coffee.
  - Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liian paljon ylityötä.

Nuance:

liikaa is slightly more compact and very natural in spoken and written Finnish.
liian paljon can feel a bit more explicit, but in practice they often overlap in everyday use.

In your sentence, you could use either; the meaning would stay essentially the same.

What exactly does “vaikka” mean here, and does it always take the conditional like “olisi”?

In this sentence, “vaikka” means “even if” or “even though”:

“…vaikka työaika olisi joustava.”
→ “…even if the working hours were flexible / even though the working hours were flexible.”

“Vaikka” does not always require the conditional. It can be followed by different moods:

Indicative (stating a fact):
- Vaikka työaika on joustava, sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä.
  → Even though the working hours are flexible, you shouldn’t do too much overtime.
  Here, the flexibility is presented as a real fact.
Conditional (hypothetical / regardless of whether it’s true):
- Vaikka työaika olisi joustava, sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä.
  → Even if the working hours were flexible, you shouldn’t do too much overtime (in any case).
  This sounds more hypothetical or “no matter if”.

So “vaikka” itself just means roughly “although / even though / even if”; the mood of the verb (on vs olisi) gives the nuance of reality vs hypothesis.

Why is it “työaika olisi joustava” and not “työaika on joustava” here?

Both are grammatically correct, but the meaning changes slightly:

työaika on joustava – “the working hours are flexible” (a fact in the real world).
- Vaikka työaika on joustava, sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä.
  → Even though the working hours are flexible, you shouldn’t do too much overtime.
  This assumes the working hours really are flexible.
työaika olisi joustava – “the working hours would be flexible / were flexible” (in conditional).
- Vaikka työaika olisi joustava, sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä.
  → Even if the working hours were flexible, you shouldn’t do too much overtime.
  This makes it sound more hypothetical: no matter whether that condition is true, the advice stands.

So “olisi” adds a hypothetical or concessive flavour: “even if that were the case.”

Why is “joustava” in the basic form, not “joustavaa”?

“Joustava” (“flexible”) here is a predicate adjective describing the subject “työaika”:

työaika (subject, nominative singular)
olisi joustava (predicate: “would be flexible”)

In Finnish, when an adjective describes the subject in this kind of “X is Y” sentence, the normal pattern is:

Subject: nominative
Predicate adjective: nominative, matching number (singular/plural)

Examples:

Pöytä on iso. – The table is big.
Pöydät ovat isot. – The tables are big.
Työaika on joustava. – The working hours are flexible.
Työaika olisi joustava. – The working hours would be flexible.

You don’t use the partitive “joustavaa” here, because we are not talking about a part of something, an ongoing change, etc. It’s just a plain statement of quality.

Can I change the word order to “Vaikka työaika olisi joustava, sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä”? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, you can absolutely change the word order:

Sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä, vaikka työaika olisi joustava.
Vaikka työaika olisi joustava, sinun ei pitäisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä.

Both are grammatically correct and mean essentially the same.

The difference is only in emphasis and flow:

Starting with “Sinun ei pitäisi…”:
- First emphasizes the advice: “You shouldn’t do too much overtime…”
- The “vaikka” clause comes as an added condition: “…even if the working hours were flexible.”
Starting with “Vaikka työaika olisi joustava…”:
- First sets up the condition/background: “Even if the working hours were flexible…”
- Then delivers the main point: “…you shouldn’t do too much overtime.”

In written Finnish, both are very natural. Spoken Finnish often prefers starting with the main clause, but both orders occur.

Is there a more colloquial / spoken-Finnish version of this sentence?

Yes. In everyday spoken Finnish, pronouns and verbs are often shortened, and plural forms of some nouns are more common. For example:

Sun ei pitäis tehdä liikaa ylitöitä, vaikka työajat ois joustavat.

Changes compared to the standard sentence:

Sinun → Sun (spoken singular “your/you”)
pitäisi → pitäis (spoken conditional)
ylityötä → ylitöitä (plural partitive, very common with “overtime”)
työaika → työajat (plural “working times/hours”, more natural in speech)
olisi → ois (spoken conditional)
joustava → joustavat (adjective agreeing with plural “työajat”)

Meaning is the same, but this is how many people would actually say it in casual conversation.

What’s the difference between “ylityötä” and “ylitöitä”?

Both come from “ylityö” (“overtime (work)”):

ylityötä = partitive singular
ylitöitä = partitive plural

Both can be used in the sense of “overtime”, but there is a subtle nuance:

ylityötä
- Treats overtime more as a general type of work, kind of like a mass noun: “overtime work (in general)”.
- E.g. En halua tehdä ylityötä. – I don’t want to do overtime (as a practice).
ylitöitä
- Feels more like many instances / hours of overtime: “overtime hours / lots of overtime”.
- Very common with quantities:
  - Teen paljon ylitöitä. – I do a lot of overtime.
  - Hän tekee liikaa ylitöitä. – He/She does too much overtime.

Your example uses “ylityötä”, which is perfectly correct and understandable. Many speakers would naturally say “liikaa ylitöitä”, but both forms are used and accepted; the difference is slight and often just stylistic.

Could I use another verb instead of “pitäisi” to give advice here, like “kannattaisi”? How would that change the nuance?

Yes, you can use other verbs of recommendation. A common alternative is “kannattaa” (“to be worth it, to pay off”). In the conditional:

Sinun ei kannattaisi tehdä liikaa ylityötä, vaikka työaika olisi joustava.

Nuance differences:

ei pitäisi
- More about duty, appropriateness, health, or moral/wise behavior.
- “You shouldn’t (it isn’t good/right for you to)…”.
ei kannattaisi
- More about practical benefit: it wouldn’t be in your interest; it doesn’t pay off.
- “It wouldn’t be worth it for you to…”.

So both give advice, but:

“ei pitäisi” = focuses on what is advisable / proper / healthy.
“ei kannattaisi” = focuses on what is beneficial or advantageous for you.