Log inSign up

Turisti kysyy, mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa.

Turisti kysyy, mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa.
A tourist asks what the most important sight in this city is.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Turisti kysyy, mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa.

Why is there a comma after kysyy?

In Finnish, a comma is normally written between a main clause and a following subordinate clause, including indirect questions.

  • Turisti kysyy = main clause (“The tourist asks”)
  • mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa = subordinate clause (“what the main sight in this city is”)

So the comma in Turisti kysyy, mikä on… is standard written Finnish punctuation to mark the boundary between the two clauses.
In English we don’t usually put a comma there (“The tourist asks what the main sight is”), but in Finnish you normally do.

Why is it mikä and not mitä?

Both mikä and mitä can mean “what”, but they are different cases of the same word.

  • mikä = nominative (used as a subject or a complement)
  • mitä = partitive (often used as an object, or in “how, what kind of” questions like Mitä se on? “What is it like?”)

Here, mikä is the subject/complement of the verb on:

  • Mikä on tärkein nähtävyys…?
    Literally: “What is the most important sight…?”

Because we’re identifying something (“X is Y”), both sides of the olla (“to be”) verb use the nominative: mikä (what) and tärkein nähtävyys (the most important sight). That’s why we use mikä, not mitä.

What exactly does tärkein mean, and what form is it?

Tärkein means “the most important” / “the main”. It is the superlative form of the adjective tärkeä (“important”).

Adjective degrees:

  • tärkeä = important
  • tärkeämpi = more important (comparative)
  • tärkein = most important (superlative)

In tärkein nähtävyys, tärkein:

  • is in nominative singular (the basic form)
  • agrees with nähtävyys, which is also nominative singular

Together they mean “the most important sight / attraction”.

What case is nähtävyys in here, and why isn’t it something like nähtävyyttä?

In this sentence, nähtävyys is in the nominative singular, the basic dictionary form.

The pattern is:

  • Mikä (nominative) on tärkein nähtävyys (nominative)?
    “What is the most important sight?”

In identity sentences of the form “X is Y” (especially with a definite, clearly identifiable thing), Finnish normally uses nominative for the complement, not partitive.

The partitive form (nähtävyyttä) would appear in different contexts, for example:

  • Täällä ei ole nähtävyyttä. – “There is no sight/attraction here.”
  • Or when talking about “some (amount of) sight/attraction”, not a specific one.

Here we’re asking about a specific, single main sight, so nominative nähtävyys is correct.

What does tässä kaupungissa literally mean, and what form is it?

Tässä kaupungissa literally means “in this city”.

It consists of:

  • tässä = “in this”
    – inessive case (internal “in” form) of tämä (“this”)
  • kaupungissa = “in (the) city”
    – inessive singular of kaupunki (“city”)

The inessive case (-ssa / -ssä) is used to express being inside or in something:

  • talossa = in the house
  • autossa = in the car
  • kaupungissa = in the city

So tässä kaupungissa = “in this city” in one compact Finnish phrase.

How is kysyy formed from kysyä? What person and tense is it?

The verb is kysyä = “to ask”.

It’s a type 1 verb; the present tense is formed by taking the stem kysy- and adding personal endings. In the 3rd person singular, the final vowel doubles:

  • minä kysyn – I ask
  • sinä kysyt – you ask
  • hän kysyy – he/she asks
  • me kysymme – we ask
  • te kysytte – you (pl.) ask
  • he kysyvät – they ask

In Turisti kysyy, kysyy is:

  • present tense
  • 3rd person singular

So Turisti kysyy can mean both:

  • “The tourist asks” (a general statement or repeated action), or
  • “The tourist is asking” (right now)

Finnish doesn’t have a separate present continuous form; context decides which English translation fits.

What’s the difference between this indirect question and a direct question in Finnish and in English?

The given sentence is an indirect question:

  • Turisti kysyy, mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa.
    “The tourist asks what the most important sight in this city is.”

Direct question in Finnish:

  • Mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa?
    “What is the most important sight in this city?”

Key points:

  1. In Finnish

    • Direct question: question word at the start, question mark at the end.
    • Indirect question: the clause after kysyy looks almost the same, but there is no question mark and it’s embedded as a subordinate clause. The word order stays essentially as in the direct question.

  2. In English

    • Direct: What is the most important sight…? (verb before subject/complement)
    • Indirect: …what the most important sight… is. (no inversion; is moves to the end)

Finnish doesn’t do that inversion change when you embed the question, so:

  • Mikä on tärkein nähtävyys…? (direct)
  • …mikä on tärkein nähtävyys… (indirect)
Could I also say Tämän kaupungin tärkein nähtävyys instead of tässä kaupungissa? What’s the difference?

Yes, that is possible, and the meaning is very close.

  • tässä kaupungissa = in this city (inessive case, expressing location)
  • tämän kaupungin = this city’s or of this city (genitive, expressing possession/relationship)

So you could say, for example:

  • Mikä on tämän kaupungin tärkein nähtävyys?
    Literally: “What is this city’s most important sight?”

Compared to:

  • Mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa?
    Literally: “What is the most important sight in this city?”

Both are natural. The choice is stylistic; tämän kaupungin slightly emphasizes “the city’s own main attraction”, while tässä kaupungissa emphasizes physical location (“in this city”).

Why don’t we say mikä on se tärkein nähtävyys with se (“it / that”)?

You could say mikä on se tärkein nähtävyys, but it sounds a bit different:

  • mikä on tärkein nähtävyys
    = neutral “What is the most important sight?”

  • mikä on se tärkein nähtävyys
    = more like “What is that main sight?” / “Which one is the main sight?”
    (perhaps when it’s been mentioned before or is somehow known from context)

In Finnish, a bare noun with a superlative (tärkein nähtävyys) already behaves like a definite noun phrase (“the most important sight”), so you usually don’t need to add se.

Adding se tends to give the feeling that you’re referring to a specific, already-known main sight, not just asking in general.

What is the literal meaning and structure of nähtävyys?

Nähtävyys means “sight, attraction” (a thing worth seeing).

It’s built from:

  • nähdä = “to see”
    → nähtävä = “(something) that should be seen / must be seen / worth seeing”
  • plus the noun-forming suffix -yys, which often makes an abstract noun

So nähtävyys is literally something like “a thing-to-be-seen-ness”, i.e. a sight or tourist attraction.

That’s why tärkein nähtävyys is naturally translated as “the main / most important attraction”.

Can the word order inside the clause mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa be changed?

Yes, Finnish word order is fairly flexible, and you can move elements for emphasis. For example:

  • Mikä on tärkein nähtävyys tässä kaupungissa? (neutral, standard)
  • Mikä tässä kaupungissa on tärkein nähtävyys?
    – Emphasizes in this city (as opposed to some other place).
  • Mikä on tässä kaupungissa tärkein nähtävyys?
    – Also puts a bit more focus on tässä kaupungissa.

All of these are grammatically correct. The version in your sentence is the most neutral and typical word order.