Koulussa pidin eniten maantiedosta, mutta biologia ja kemia olivat myös kiinnostavia.

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

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Koulussa pidin eniten maantiedosta, mutta biologia ja kemia olivat myös kiinnostavia.

Why is maantiedosta in the form with -sta (elative case) instead of just maantieto?

The verb pitää in the sense of “to like” normally takes its object in the elative case (the -sta/-stä form).

  • pitää + elative = to like something
    • pidän suklaasta = I like chocolate
    • pidin maantiedosta = I liked geography

So maantiedosta is maantieto (geography) + -sta (elative), literally “from geography”, but idiomatically “geography” as the thing you like.

Using nominative pidin maantieto would be wrong here; with this meaning of pitää, you must use the elative.


What exactly does pidin mean here, and what’s the base form?

Pidin is the first-person singular past tense of the verb pitää in the meaning “to like”.

  • Base form (infinitive): pitää
  • Present tense, 1st sg: pidän = I like
  • Past tense, 1st sg: pidin = I liked

Note that pitää has several meanings depending on context:

  • pitää jostakin = to like something
  • pitää kiinni = to hold on
  • pitää esitelmä = to give a presentation
  • pitää tehdä = must / have to do (modal use)

Here it’s clearly the “like” meaning because it comes with maantiedosta (elative + school subject).


Why is it eniten and where does it go in the sentence?

Eniten means “the most” (superlative of “much/many”: paljon → enemmän → eniten).

The typical pattern with pitää is:

  • pitää eniten jostakin = to like something the most

In the sentence:

  • Koulussa pidin eniten maantiedosta
    = At school I liked geography the most.

Word-order-wise:

  • pidin eniten maantiedosta (very natural)
  • pidin maantiedosta eniten (also possible, just a slight emphasis shift)

But you need eniten somewhere if you want to express “the most”; pidin maantiedosta alone would just be “I liked geography” without the comparative idea.


Why is it koulussa and not koulussa pidin… some other way, or koulussa vs koululla?

Koulussa is koul u + ssa: inessive case, meaning “in (the) school” / “at school”.

  • koulussa = in/at school (inside the school / as a student there)
  • koululla (adessive) = at the school (at the school premises, more physical location)

In this sentence it refers to your time as a pupil/student, so koulussa is right.

Word order:

  • Koulussa pidin eniten maantiedosta (as given)
  • Pidin koulussa eniten maantiedosta
  • Eniten pidin koulussa maantiedosta

All are grammatically fine; Finnish word order is flexible and mostly changes emphasis, not basic meaning. Starting with Koulussa emphasizes the context “At school” first.


Why are biologia and kemia in the basic form (nominative), but maantiedosta is in a case?

They are playing different grammatical roles:

  • maantiedosta is the object of pitin with the verb pitää jostakin, which requires the elative (maantiedosta = from/about geography → “geography” as liked thing).
  • biologia ja kemia are the subject of the second clause:
    biologia ja kemia olivat myös kiinnostavia
    → biology and chemistry were also interesting.

Subjects in Finnish are typically in the nominative case (here: biologia, kemia).

So:

  • maantiedosta: elative, because of the verb pitää (jostakin).
  • biologia ja kemia: nominative plural subject of olivat.

Why is it olivat and not oli? In English you could say “biology and chemistry was interesting” informally.

Biologia ja kemia is a coordinated subject (two items), so Finnish treats it as plural, and the verb must agree:

  • biologia ja kemia olivat = biology and chemistry were

Using oli here (biologia ja kemia oli kiinnostava) would be ungrammatical in standard Finnish. Unlike some informal English, Finnish does not use a singular verb with a compound subject.


Why is kiinnostavia in this form and not kiinnostavat or kiinnostava?

Kiinnostavia is the partitive plural of kiinnostava (“interesting”).

Rule: when you have olla (“to be”) + descriptive adjective and the subject is plural, you usually use either:

  • nominative plural adjective (kiinnostavat), or
  • partitive plural adjective (kiinnostavia).

Which one you choose depends on nuance:

  • biologia ja kemia olivat kiinnostavat
    → treats them as a specific, clearly delimited set that is interesting as a whole; sounds a bit more “categorical” or list-like.
  • biologia ja kemia olivat kiinnostavia
    → describes them in a more general, qualitative way (“were (quite) interesting [subjects]”); this is usually more natural here.

So kiinnostavia is preferred stylistically. Using the singular kiinnostava would be wrong because the subject is plural.


Could the sentence say mutta myös biologia ja kemia olivat kiinnostavia instead? What’s the difference in word order?

Yes, you can say both:

  1. … mutta biologia ja kemia olivat myös kiinnostavia.
  2. … mutta myös biologia ja kemia olivat kiinnostavia.

Both are grammatical:

  • In (1), myös (also) is close to kiinnostavia, so the focus is more like:
    “…but biology and chemistry were also interesting.”
  • In (2), myös is before the subject, so it emphasizes adding those subjects to the list:
    “…but biology and chemistry too were interesting.”

In practice, the meaning is almost the same here; it’s just a slight difference in what you’re highlighting.


Why is myös used instead of something like kanssa or myöskin?

Myös is the standard word for “also / too / as well” in this kind of sentence.

  • myös = also, too (very common, neutral)
  • myöskin = also (a bit more formal or emphatic, but close in meaning)
  • kanssa = “with” (a postposition), not a direct equivalent of “also”

You could say myöskin instead of myös:

  • … mutta biologia ja kemia olivat myöskin kiinnostavia.

It feels slightly more emphatic or stylistically heavier, but is correct.

You cannot replace myös with kanssa here; kanssa is used like:

  • Olen Liisan kanssa. = I am with Liisa.

Is there a difference between maantieto and geografia in Finnish?

Yes:

  • maantieto is the normal word, especially for the school subject “geography”.
  • geografia exists but is much less common in everyday language and sounds more technical or borrowed/international.

So for talking about school subjects, maantieto is what you should use:
Pidin eniten maantiedosta.


Could I say Pidin eniten maantiedosta koulussa, or must koulussa come first?

You can absolutely say:

  • Pidin eniten maantiedosta koulussa.

Finnish word order is relatively flexible. All of these are grammatical:

  • Koulussa pidin eniten maantiedosta.
  • Pidin koulussa eniten maantiedosta.
  • Pidin eniten maantiedosta koulussa.

The differences are in emphasis:

  • Starting with Koulussa strongly sets the frame: “As for school, …”
  • Ending with koulussa can subtly contrast with some other context (for example, “at home I liked something else, but at school I liked geography the most”).

In isolation, all versions are fine and natural.