Jos menen lenkille varhain, minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen.

Breakdown of Jos menen lenkille varhain, minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen.

minä
I
mennä
to go
pian
soon
jos
if
tulla
to become
aina
always
-lle
for
lenkki
the run
uudestaan
again
varhain
early
janoinen
thirsty
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Jos menen lenkille varhain, minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen.

What does "lenkille" mean here, and why is it in that form instead of just "lenkki" or "lenkillä"?

Lenkki literally means a loop or a round, and by extension a (jogging) run / a walk / going out for exercise.

  • lenkille is the illative case (“into / onto a walk”), used after mennä to express go (out) for a walk/run.
    • mennä lenkille ≈ “to go for a run / to go jogging / to go for a walk (for exercise)”.

Compare:

  • Olen lenkillä.I am out on a run / I am out walking (adessive: state or location: on a run).
  • Menen lenkille.I’m going out for a run (illative: movement onto/into that activity).

So lenkille is the normal form after mennä for this meaning.

Why is it "varhain" and not "aikaisin"? Are they different?

Both varhain and aikaisin mean “early” (in time).

  • varhain is a bit more formal / literary and slightly less common in casual spoken language.
  • aikaisin is very common and completely natural in speech.

You could say:

  • Jos menen lenkille varhain, …
  • Jos menen lenkille aikaisin, …

Both are correct and mean almost the same. In everyday spoken Finnish, aikaisin would probably be more typical.

Why is there a comma after "Jos menen lenkille varhain"? Is it always required?

In standard written Finnish, a comma is normally used between:

  • a conditional clause starting with jos and
  • the main clause.

So:

  • Jos menen lenkille varhain, minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen.
    If I go for a run early, I always soon become thirsty again.

Yes, in written standard language, this comma is expected and correct. In very informal text (e.g. chats), people sometimes drop commas, but that’s a spelling issue, not a grammar rule.

The part "minusta tulee … janoinen" looks strange. Literally it’s “from me comes thirsty”. Is that how “I become thirsty” is said in Finnish?

Yes. Finnish often uses the structure:

  • minusta tulee + adjective
    literally: from me comes [adjective]I become [adjective]

So:

  • minusta tulee janoinenI become thirsty
  • minusta tulee väsynytI become tired
  • minusta tulee iloinenI become happy

minusta is the elative form of minä (“from me”). Grammatically, minusta is the subject, and tulla means to become here.

A slightly more colloquial alternative would be:

  • Tulen aina pian uudestaan janoiseksi.
    (using tulla
    • translative janoiseksi).

But minusta tulee janoinen is perfectly correct and common, especially in written Finnish.

Why is it "minusta" (elative: “from me”) and not "minä" in nominative?

In this particular pattern:

  • [NOUN/PRONOUN in elative] + tulla + [adjective (nominative)]

the elative case (ending often -sta / -stä) is used to mark the “source” of the change:

  • minusta tulee opettajaI will become a teacher.
  • lapsesta tuli kuuluisaThe child became famous.
  • meistä tulee ystäviäWe become friends.

So minusta is required by this grammatical pattern. Minä tulee janoinen would be incorrect. The use of elative here is just part of standard Finnish syntax for “to become X” with tulla.

Could you also say "tulen aina pian uudestaan janoiseksi" instead of "minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen"? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can, and it’s very natural.

Two patterns:

  1. minusta tulee janoinen

    • elative (minusta) + tulla
      • adjective (nominative: janoinen)
  2. tulen janoiseksi

    • verb tulla conjugated normally (tulen) + adjective in translative (janoiseksi = into being thirsty)

Differences:

  • Pattern 2 (tulen janoiseksi) is often felt as a bit more straightforward and colloquial.
  • Pattern 1 (minusta tulee janoinen) is maybe a bit more neutral / written, and also often used for more permanent changes:
    • Minusta tulee pian isä.I will soon become a father.

In your sentence, both are fine and mean the same: I (always) soon become thirsty again.

What does "aina pian uudestaan" mean as a group? Is the word order important?

Breaking it down:

  • aina – always
  • pian – soon
  • uudestaan – again

Together: “always soon again”always soon (after that), againI get thirsty again fairly soon, every time.

About word order:

  • minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen – very natural.
  • minusta tulee pian aina uudestaan janoinen – possible but less natural.
  • minusta tulee pian uudestaan aina janoinen – sounds wrong or at least very odd.

Finnish word order is flexible, but commonly:

  1. aina (frequency)
  2. pian (time: soon, quickly)
  3. uudestaan (repetition: again)

is a natural and clear order.

Is "uudestaan" the same as "taas"? Could you say "taas" instead?

They’re very similar, but not identical in feel.

  • taas = again, once more, back (to a previous state). Very common and neutral.
  • uudestaan = again, anew, afresh, slightly more focused on repeating an action rather than just being back in a previous state.

In your sentence, both work:

  • minusta tulee aina pian taas janoinen – perfectly natural.
  • minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen – also natural; maybe just a touch more “explicitly repeating”.

In everyday speech, taas might be more frequent simply because it’s so short and common.

Why is "janoinen" in the basic form and not "janoisena" or "janoiseksi"?

Because of the pattern used:

  • minusta tulee + adjective (nominative)

In this construction, the adjective stays in its basic (nominative) form:

  • minusta tulee iloinen – I become happy
  • minusta tulee väsynyt – I become tired
  • minusta tulee janoinen – I become thirsty

If you changed the structure, the case would change too:

  • Tulen janoiseksi. – translative (janoiseksi) with a different pattern.
  • Olen janoisena lenkillä. – essive (janoisena), meaning “I am (in the state of being) thirsty while on the run” (more like a temporary as / in the role of state).

So in minusta tulee … janoinen, nominative janoinen is exactly what the grammar of that pattern requires.

Could the sentence start with "Minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen, jos…" instead? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, you can invert the order:

  • Minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen, jos menen lenkille varhain.

Meaning: unchanged – still If I go for a run early, I always soon get thirsty again.

Differences:

  • Emphasis shifts slightly:
    • Original: Jos menen lenkille varhain, … – focuses first on the condition (going early).
    • Inverted: Minusta tulee aina pian uudestaan janoinen, jos… – starts by stressing the result state (getting thirsty).

Both orders are grammatically correct and natural. Word order in Finnish often changes what you emphasize, not the basic factual content.

What would be a very natural English translation of the whole sentence that keeps the nuance?

A good, natural translation would be:

  • “If I go for a run early, I always end up getting thirsty again pretty soon.”

Other close options:

  • “If I go jogging early, I always get thirsty again soon.”
  • “When I go out for a run early, I always become thirsty again quickly.”

All of these capture: conditional “if”, going out for exercise, repetition (“again”), and quickness (“soon”).