Log inSign up

Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.

Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.
On Saturday evening I go to the store only if the refrigerator is empty.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.

What is going on with lauantai-iltana? Why the hyphen, and what form is this?

Lauantai-iltana comes from the compound noun lauantai-ilta (Saturday evening).

  • lauantai = Saturday
  • ilta = evening
  • Combined: lauantai-ilta = Saturday evening (as one concept)

The ending -na is the essive case, which is often used for time expressions meaning “on X” in the sense of at that time:

  • lauantai-ilta → lauantai-iltana = on Saturday evening
  • joulu (Christmas) → jouluna = at Christmas
  • talvi (winter) → talvena = in winter

The hyphen is there because lauantai-ilta is a compound where the first element ends in the same vowel that starts the second (lauantai + ilta → lauantai-ilta). In such cases, Finnish often uses a hyphen in the basic form and all its case forms:

  • lauantai-ilta → lauantai-iltana, lauantai-illasta, etc.
Could I say lauantaina illalla instead of lauantai-iltana? Are they different?

You can say both, but they feel slightly different:

  • lauantai-iltana

    • Treats Saturday evening as one unit of time.
    • Very natural and compact: on Saturday evening (as a single block).

  • lauantaina illalla (both words in adverbial form)

    • lauantaina = on Saturday
    • illalla = in the evening
    • Feels a bit more like “on Saturday, in the evening”, two time expressions together.

Both are correct and commonly used. In most everyday contexts, they are interchangeable. You would not say ✗ lauantaina iltana; that’s unidiomatic.

What does vain do here, and why is it right before jos?

In this sentence:

Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.

the words vain jos form a unit: only if.

  • vain = only
  • jos = if
  • Together: vain jos jääkaappi on tyhjä = only if the fridge is empty

So vain does not modify menen kauppaan directly; it restricts the condition. The meaning is:

I will go to the store on Saturday evening *only on the condition that the fridge is empty.*

If you moved vain elsewhere, you’d change the emphasis or even the meaning:

  • Vain lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.
    = Only on Saturday evening do I go to the store, if the fridge is empty. (Other days I don’t go, even if it’s empty.)

  • Lauantai-iltana menen vain kauppaan, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.
    = On Saturday evening I go only to the store, if the fridge is empty. (I don’t go anywhere else.)

So in the original sentence, vain is placed before jos to clearly form vain jos (only if).

Why is there a comma before jos?

Finnish comma rules are quite strict with subordinate clauses.

Jos introduces a conditional clause (an “if”-clause). The rule is:

  • A subordinate clause (such as one starting with jos) is always separated by a comma from the main clause.

So both of these need a comma:

  • Menen kauppaan, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.
  • Jos jääkaappi on tyhjä, menen kauppaan.

In your sentence, the main clause comes first, then the jos-clause, so the comma stands before jos as required.

Why is jos used instead of kun or something else?

Jos expresses a condition or possibility:

  • jos jääkaappi on tyhjä = if the fridge is empty (and maybe it isn’t)

Other options:

  • kun = when / whenever / since (often implies that the thing is certain or expected)

    • Kun jääkaappi on tyhjä, menen kauppaan.
      = When(ever) the fridge is empty, I go to the store. (stated as a fact or routine)

  • mikäli = if / provided that (a bit more formal)

    • Mikäli jääkaappi on tyhjä, menen kauppaan.

In your sentence, you are presenting a condition, so jos is the normal, neutral choice.

Why is kauppaan used, and what case is that?

Kauppaan is the illative case of kauppa (store, shop).

Illative (-Vn, often -an/–en/–iin) expresses movement into something:

  • kauppa → kauppaan = to the store / into the store
  • talo → taloon = into the house
  • koulu → kouluun = to school / into school

Since mennä means to go, you need a directional form:

  • Menen kauppaan. = I go to the store.

If you said:

  • Olen kaupassa. (inessive -ssa)
    = I am in the store.

So kauppaan is correct because the verb describes going to somewhere.

Could I say Menen lauantai-iltana vain kauppaan…? How does word order and emphasis work here?

Yes, but the meaning changes depending on where vain is placed.

Original:

Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.
(I go to the store on Saturday evening *only if the fridge is empty.*)

Some alternatives:

  1. Lauantai-iltana menen vain kauppaan, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.

    • vain now modifies kauppaan.
    • Meaning: On Saturday evening, I go *only to the store (nowhere else), if the fridge is empty.*

  2. Vain jos jääkaappi on tyhjä, menen kauppaan lauantai-iltana.

    • Strong emphasis on the condition.
    • Meaning: Only if the fridge is empty will I go to the store on Saturday evening (otherwise I definitely won’t).

  3. Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan, vain jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.

    • Very similar to the original; spoken intonation decides how strongly vain is heard with jos.

Finnish word order is flexible, but position of “vain” is crucial for what is being limited (time, destination, the whole event, or the condition).

Why is it on tyhjä and not on tyhjää?

This is about the predicate adjective and when it is in nominative vs partitive.

  • jääkaappi on tyhjä

    • tyhjä is nominative.
    • This is used when the state is seen as total / complete or a clear quality.
    • Meaning: The fridge is (completely) empty.

  • jääkaappi on tyhjää

    • This is ungrammatical as a normal sentence describing the fridge.
    • The partitive tyhjää would only appear in special constructions, e.g. jääkaapissa on tyhjää = there is emptiness in the fridge / there’s nothing in the fridge, but then tyhjää is the thing that exists, not an adjective describing jääkaappi.

Rule of thumb:

  • With olla
    • a describing word for a whole countable thing (like jääkaappi) in a simple X is Y sentence, the describing word is normally nominative:
      • Jääkaappi on tyhjä. = The fridge is empty.
      • Auto on punainen. = The car is red.

So on tyhjä is the normal and correct form here.

Why is jääkaappi in singular, even though English says “the fridge” (which also looks singular)?

This is mainly about articles, not number.

In English, the fridge is singular, but the the makes it definite. Finnish has no articles (no a/an, no the). So:

  • jääkaappi can mean:
    • a fridge
    • the fridge
      depending on context.

In this sentence, context clearly points to “our/your fridge”, and Finnish just says jääkaappi with no article. There is nothing special about the singular here; it just matches the English singular.

Why is the tense on (present) used for the future meaning “if the fridge is empty (then I will go)”?

Finnish normally uses the present tense for many future meanings, especially in if-clauses and time clauses:

  • Jos jääkaappi on tyhjä, menen kauppaan.
    Literally: If the fridge is empty, I go to the store.
    Meaning in context: If the fridge is empty, I will go to the store.

There is a separate future-like form (tulen tekemään, I am going to do), but it’s not normally used in plain if sentences. You do not say:

  • ✗ Jos jääkaappi tulee olemaan tyhjä, menen kauppaan. (very unnatural here)

So the present on naturally covers “is / will be” in this conditional context.

Would it ever make sense to use the conditional, like menisin or olisi, in a sentence like this?

Yes, but it would express a more hypothetical or polite situation.

Your sentence:

  • Lauantai-iltana menen kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi on tyhjä.
    = A straightforward plan/rule: I go / I will go.

More hypothetical:

  • Lauantai-iltana menisin kauppaan vain, jos jääkaappi olisi tyhjä.
    = On Saturday evening I would go to the store only if the fridge were empty.
    This sounds like you’re discussing a theoretical situation, or being more tentative/polite.

So both tenses are possible, but they carry different shades of meaning. The original sentence describes a real plan or rule, so the present tense is the natural choice.