Kirjoitin kommentin opettajan videon alle, koska pidin siitä.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Kirjoitin kommentin opettajan videon alle, koska pidin siitä.

Why is it kirjoitin and not kirjoitan?

Kirjoitin is the past tense (imperfect) form of kirjoittaa for I.

  • kirjoitan = I write / I am writing (present tense)
  • kirjoitin = I wrote (past tense)

The ending -n marks 1st person singular (I), and the -i- inside the verb stem usually signals the past tense in Finnish verbs:

  • kirjoita-nI write
  • kirjoit-i-nI wrote

So the sentence is clearly talking about something that happened in the past.

Why is it kommentin and not kommentti?

Kommentti is the basic form (nominative).
Kommentin is the accusative/genitive form of the object, used here because:

  • the object (kommentti) is singular,
  • the action is completed (you fully wrote the comment),
  • and the verb is in a finite form (here: past tense).

In Finnish, a total, completed object often appears in the genitive-looking form ending in -n:

  • Luet kommenttia.You are reading (some of) the comment. (ongoing, partitive)
  • Luet kommentin.You read the (whole) comment. (total object, completed)

Similarly:

  • Kirjoitin kommenttia. – I was (in the process of) writing a comment.
  • Kirjoitin kommentin. – I wrote the comment (finished it).

So kommentin signals that the comment is a whole, completed object of the action.

Why is it opettajan video and not opettaja video?

In Finnish, possession is usually expressed with the genitive case.

  • opettaja = teacher (basic form)
  • opettajan = teacher’s (genitive: belonging to the teacher)

So:

  • opettaja video would just be two nouns stuck together and is not correct.
  • opettajan video means the teacher’s video.

The pattern is:

  • opettajaopettajan (teacher → teacher’s)
  • ystäväystävän (friend → friend’s)
  • tyttötytön (girl → girl’s)

So opettajan videon literally is the teacher’s video’s (because both are in genitive here for grammatical reasons, see the next question).

Why is it videon alle and not video alle or videon alla?

There are two separate things going on here:

  1. videon

    • video = video (basic)
    • videon = video’s (genitive)

      In the phrase opettajan videon alle, videon is connected to alle, forming a phrase videon alle: under the video. The genitive is often used before postpositions like alle, päällä, eteen, takana, etc.

  2. alle vs alla
    These come from the word alla (under), but they differ in case:

    • alla (adessive) = under in the sense of being located under
      • Kommentti on videon alla. – The comment is under the video.
    • alle (allative) = to under in the sense of moving to a place under
      • Kirjoitin kommentin videon alle. – I wrote a comment (to appear) under the video.

So:

  • videon alla = under the video (location, static)
  • videon alle = to under the video (direction / end point of movement or placement)

In this sentence, you are placing the comment so that it ends up under the video → videon alle.

Why is the word order opettajan videon alle and not alle opettajan videon?

In Finnish, postpositions like alle usually come after the noun phrase they belong to, not before it:

  • videon alle = under the video
  • not alle videon

When there is a longer noun phrase, the structure is:

possessor (genitive) + head noun (often in genitive before a postposition) + postposition

So:

  • opettajan videon alle = under the teacher’s video
  • lasten pöydän alle = under the children’s table

Putting alle at the beginning (alle opettajan videon) would sound wrong and un-Finnish. Postpositions keep their position after the noun phrase.

Why is it koska pidin siitä and not just koska pidin se or koska pidin sen?

The verb pitää meaning to like has a special pattern:

pitää + elative case (‑sta / ‑stä form) = to like something

So:

  • pidän musiikista – I like music.
  • pidän sinusta – I like you.
  • pidin siitä – I liked it.

Here, siitä is the elative form of se (it / that):

  • sesiitä (from it / about it)

Why not se or sen?

  • pidin se – wrong, because pitää
    • object doesn’t work like English “like something”.
  • pidin sen – would instead suggest a different pattern, like “I held it” (from pitää = to hold/keep), where sen is the object.

So, when pitää = to like, you must use -sta / -stä / siitä:

  • pidän kahvista – I like coffee.
  • pidin siitä – I liked it.
What exactly does siitä refer to in this sentence?

Siitä here refers back to the teacher’s video.

The full phrase is:

  • Kirjoitin kommentin opettajan videon alle, koska pidin siitä.
    … because I liked it.

Contextually, siitä = opettajan videosta:

  • more explicit: …koska pidin opettajan videosta. – because I liked the teacher’s video.

Using siitä instead of repeating opettajan video is natural and avoids repetition, just like English uses it.

Why does pidin not use the subject pronoun minä? Where did “I” go?

Finnish usually drops subject pronouns when the verb ending already makes the subject clear.

  • minä pidän = I like
  • pidän = I like (the -n tells you “I”)
  • minä pidin = I liked
  • pidin = I liked

In your sentence:

  • pidin already shows 1st person singular through the -n ending.
  • Adding minä is possible but not necessary:
    • …, koska minä pidin siitä. – also correct, just more emphatic.

So “I” is built into the verb ending.

Why is there a comma before koska?

In Finnish, when you have a main clause and a subordinate clause with koska (because), you usually separate them with a comma:

  • Kirjoitin kommentin opettajan videon alle, (main clause)
  • koska pidin siitä. (subordinate clause, reason)

Examples:

  • Menin kotiin, koska olin väsynyt. – I went home because I was tired.
  • En tullut, koska olin kipeä. – I didn’t come because I was ill.

So the comma before koska is regular Finnish punctuation, not optional decoration.

Could I say Kirjoitin kommentin opettajan videon alle, koska pidin siitä videosta instead of koska pidin siitä?

You can, but it sounds a bit heavy and repetitive.

  • koska pidin siitä videosta literally: because I liked that video (there).
  • koska pidin siitä: because I liked it – smoother and more natural when the reference is obvious.

If you really want to mention video again, a more natural repeat would be:

  • …, koska pidin siitä videosta.
    (using siitä
    • videosta together for emphasis: that video there).

But in ordinary speech and writing, koska pidin siitä is preferred here, since “it” is very clear from context.