Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen.

We read the work contract carefully before we signed it.

Breakdown of Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen.

• lukea: to read
• se: it
• ennen kuin: before
• allekirjoittaa: to sign
• työsopimus: the work contract
• tarkasti: carefully

Questions & Answers about Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen.

What does Luimme mean exactly, and why is there no subject pronoun like me (“we”) in the sentence?

Luimme is the past tense, 1st person plural form of the verb lukea (“to read”). Literally, it means “we read” (past).

• Verb stem: luk- (changes to lui- in past tense)
• Past tense marker: -i-
• Personal ending: -mme (1st person plural “we”)
• → lu(i)+mme = luimme

In Finnish, the personal ending on the verb (-mme) already tells you the subject, so the pronoun me (“we”) is usually omitted unless you want to emphasize it.
You could say Me luimme työsopimuksen..., but the default, neutral style is just Luimme työsopimuksen...

Why is it työsopimuksen and not työsopimus or työsopimusta?

Työsopimuksen is the genitive form of työsopimus (“employment contract”).

Finnish objects in past, completed actions often appear in genitive (sometimes called the “total object”), especially when the whole thing is affected or completed:

• Luimme työsopimuksen.
  → “We read (through) the employment contract.” (the whole contract, completed act)
• Compare: Luin kirjaa.
  → “I was reading a book.” (partitive, ongoing / not necessarily finished)

So:

• työsopimus = “an employment contract” (basic form, nominative)
• työsopimuksen = “(the) employment contract” as a total object
• työsopimusta would be partitive and would suggest an ongoing, incomplete reading (e.g. “we were reading the contract”), which doesn’t fit here.

That’s why työsopimuksen is used: it shows a completed action affecting the whole contract.

Why is there no article like “the” or “an” in työsopimuksen? How do I know if it’s “the employment contract” or “an employment contract”?

Finnish does not have articles (a/an/the). The form työsopimuksen simply means “employment contract” as a genitive object; whether you translate it as “the” or “an” depends on context, not grammar.

In this sentence, the context implies a specific contract (the one we are about to sign), so English naturally uses “the employment contract”. If context were more indefinite, English might use “an employment contract”, but Finnish would still just use työsopimuksen here (if it’s a total object).

So the “definiteness” is not marked in the word form itself in Finnish.

What role does tarkasti play in the sentence, and why is it tarkasti and not tarkka?

Tarkasti is an adverb meaning “carefully” or “thoroughly”. It modifies the verb luimme (“we read”).

• tarkka = adjective “careful, accurate”
  • e.g. tarkka ihminen = “a careful person”
• tarkasti = adverb “carefully, accurately”
  • e.g. Luimme tarkasti. = “We read carefully.”

In Finnish, many adverbs are formed from adjectives by adding -sti:

• nopea → nopeasti (fast → quickly)
• selvä → selvästi (clear → clearly)
• tarkka → tarkasti (careful → carefully)

So tarkasti is the correct form because it describes how the reading was done.

Can tarkasti appear in a different place, like Luimme tarkasti työsopimuksen? Does the word order change the meaning?

Yes, you can move tarkasti:

• Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti ennen kuin…
• Luimme tarkasti työsopimuksen ennen kuin…

Both are grammatical and essentially mean the same thing: “We read the employment contract carefully…”

Finnish word order is relatively flexible. Neutral, commonly used placements are:

• Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti...
• Luimme tarkasti työsopimuksen...

The slight difference is more about rhythm and emphasis than about core meaning. Putting tarkasti right after the verb can subtly highlight how you read; placing it right after työsopimuksen can make it feel a bit more attached to the object (“the contract – carefully”).

But in normal speech, both are fine and understood the same way.

What does the construction ennen kuin mean, and why do we need kuin here? Why not just ennen?

Ennen kuin is a two-word conjunction meaning “before (something happens)” when it introduces a full finite clause (with its own verb):

• ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen
  → “before we signed it”

Use it like this:

• Ennen kuin tulit, siivosin.
  → “Before you came, I cleaned.”

If ennen is followed by just a noun (not a full clause), you do not use kuin:

• ennen allekirjoitusta = “before the signing”
• ennen lomaa = “before the holiday”

So:

• ennen + noun (no kuin):
  ennen lomaa, ennen allekirjoitusta
• ennen kuin + clause (with verb and subject):
  ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen

Why is the verb after ennen kuin in the past tense: allekirjoitimme, and not some other form?

The clause ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen is describing a specific past event (the moment when we signed), so Finnish uses the normal past tense there.

Tense in the subordinate clause follows the same logic as in an independent sentence:

• Main clause: Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti (we read, in the past)
• Subordinate:
  • ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen (before we signed it, also in the past)

Compare:

• Luemme työsopimuksen tarkasti, ennen kuin allekirjoitamme sen.
  → “We (will) read / are reading the contract carefully before we sign it.”
  (present/future context, both verbs in present)

So allekirjoitimme is simply the past tense, 1st person plural to match the past-time situation.

What does allekirjoitimme consist of, and what is the base form of this verb?

The base (dictionary) form is allekirjoittaa = “to sign” (a document).

Allekirjoitimme breaks down like this:

• allekirjoitta- = verb stem
• -i- = past tense marker
• -mme = 1st person plural ending (“we”)

So:

• allekirjoittaa → “to sign”
• allekirjoitimme → “we signed”

Other forms for comparison:

• minä allekirjoitin = I signed
• sinä allekirjoitit = you signed (singular)
• hän allekirjoitti = he/she signed
• me allekirjoitimme = we signed
• te allekirjoititte = you signed (plural/formal)
• he allekirjoittivat = they signed

What does sen refer to in this sentence, and is it necessary? Could you leave it out?

In ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen, the pronoun sen (“it”) refers back to työsopimuksen (“the employment contract”).

So literally:
“…before we signed it.”

In standard written Finnish, this sen is normally kept, because it makes the reference clear and mirrors English “it”. Grammatically, you could drop it if context is absolutely clear:

• …ennen kuin allekirjoitimme.

But this sounds incomplete and a bit unnatural in careful written language. In spoken Finnish, people sometimes omit such pronouns when the object is very obvious, but as a learner it’s safer and more natural to include sen here.

Could the sentence be phrased using a noun like “before signing” instead of “before we signed it”? How would that look in Finnish?

Yes. Instead of a full ennen kuin + clause, you can use ennen + -minen-noun to mirror “before signing”:

• Luimme työsopimuksen tarkasti ennen allekirjoittamista.
  → “We read the employment contract carefully before (the) signing.”

Here, allekirjoittamista is the partitive form of the noun allekirjoittaminen (“signing”).

Nuance:

• ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen = “before we signed it” (explicit subject and time, more concrete event)
• ennen allekirjoittamista = “before (the) signing” (a bit more abstract / nominal)

Both are correct; the original with ennen kuin allekirjoitimme sen is very natural and clear in everyday use.