Learn Hardcore Finnish: Laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa muistikirjaan, kun sumu peittää meren. - The poet sitting on the ship writes in a notebook when fog covers the sea.

Laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa muistikirjaan, kun sumu peittää meren.

The poet sitting on the ship writes in a notebook when fog covers the sea.

Breakdown of Laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa muistikirjaan, kun sumu peittää meren.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa muistikirjaan, kun sumu peittää meren.

What does laivalla mean exactly, and why does it use the ending -lla instead of -ssa?

Laivalla is the adessive case of laiva (ship / boat). The adessive -lla/-llä often means:

on something (on the surface)
at/by a place
sometimes by means of (e.g. junalla = by train)

So laivalla here most naturally means “on the boat/ship” (physically on board).

Why not laivassa?
Laivassa (inessive -ssa/-ssä) would literally be “in the ship”, emphasizing being inside the vessel (e.g. in the cabins). Laivalla is the normal way to say on a boat / on board in Finnish.

So:

laivalla istuva runoilija ≈ the poet sitting on the boat
laivassa istuva runoilija would suggest the poet sitting inside the ship (cabins, interior).

What is istuva in laivalla istuva runoilija, and how does that whole phrase work?

Istuva is the present active participle of the verb istua (to sit). In English terms, it’s like turning sit into sitting to describe someone:

istua → istuva (sitting)

In laivalla istuva runoilija:

runoilija = poet (the main noun, subject)
istuva = sitting (a participle acting like an adjective)
laivalla = on the boat

So the structure is:

[laivalla istuva] runoilija
the poet who is sitting on the boat

This is equivalent to a relative clause:

Runoilija, joka istuu laivalla, kirjoittaa…
The poet who is sitting on the boat is writing…

Using the participle (laivalla istuva runoilija) is more compact and often a bit more literary or written-style than a full joka-clause.

Why is there no word for “a” or “the” before runoilija? How do we know if it’s “a poet” or “the poet”?

Finnish has no articles (no words like a, an, the), so runoilija is just “poet” in a bare form. Whether you translate it as “a poet” or “the poet” depends entirely on context, not on any word in the Finnish sentence.

In isolation:

Laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa…
can be translated as:
- A poet sitting on the boat is writing…
  or
- The poet sitting on the boat is writing…

If the poet has already been mentioned or is otherwise specific in the story, English would typically choose “the poet”. If this is the first mention and we’re just introducing someone, “a poet” is more natural.

Why is it muistikirjaan and not muistikirjassa? How does Finnish say “write in a notebook”?

Muistikirjaan is the illative case of muistikirja (notebook), formed with -an here:

muistikirja → muistikirjaan = into the notebook

The illative -an/-en/-seen often expresses movement into something. With kirjoittaa (to write), you usually use the illative when you mean writing into some kind of container (a notebook, a diary, a document, etc.):

kirjoittaa muistikirjaan = write into a notebook
kirjoittaa päiväkirjaan = write into a diary

English normally just says “write in a notebook”, but Finnish focuses on the idea of putting text into the notebook, hence the illative.

Muistikirjassa (inessive -ssa) would literally be “in the notebook” and sounds off here for the act of writing; muistikirjaan is the natural, idiomatic choice with kirjoittaa.

What exactly does kun mean here, and why is there a comma before it?

In this sentence, kun is a subordinating conjunction meaning “when” (or “as” in a temporal sense):

…, kun sumu peittää meren.
= …, when the fog covers the sea.

It introduces a subordinate clause that gives the time frame for the main action (the poet writing).

About the comma:

In Finnish, you normally put a comma before a subordinate clause introduced by words like kun, koska, että, jos, etc.
So the comma before kun is required by standard punctuation rules, even if English often omits it.

Note: kun can also mean “because/since” in other contexts, but here the natural reading is clearly temporal: at the time when the fog covers the sea.

Why are kirjoittaa and peittää in the simple present? Does this mean “writes” or “is writing / is covering”?

Finnish has one present tense form that covers both English:

simple present (writes / covers)
present continuous (is writing / is covering)

So:

runoilija kirjoittaa can be:
- the poet writes
- the poet is writing
sumu peittää meren can be:
- the fog covers the sea
- the fog is covering the sea

In this specific sentence, because it describes a scene, an English speaker would usually translate it as:

The poet sitting on the boat *is writing in a notebook as the fog covers / is covering the sea.*

Both “covers” and “is covering” are possible; the Finnish tense itself doesn’t force you to choose; you pick what sounds most natural in English.

What cases are sumu and meren in, and why is it meren instead of meri or merta?

sumu (fog) is in the nominative case → it’s the subject of the clause.
meren is in the genitive/total object form of meri (sea).

Forms of meri:

nominative: meri
genitive: meren
partitive: merta

With peittää (to cover), the thing being covered is the object. Finnish uses two main patterns:

Genitive (total object): whole, bounded, or completed coverage
- sumu peittää meren
  the fog covers (the whole) sea / the sea is covered by fog
Partitive (partial or ongoing):
- sumu peittää merta
  the fog is covering some of the sea / there is fog over the sea (not necessarily all of it)

So meren here suggests that, conceptually, the whole sea is covered. It’s often called a “total object”; its form happens to be the same as the genitive.

Could we say laivassa istuva runoilija instead of laivalla istuva runoilija? How would that change the meaning?

You can say laivassa istuva runoilija, but:

laivalla istuva runoilija = the poet sitting on (board) the ship
laivassa istuva runoilija = the poet sitting in(side) the ship

The first describes being on the vessel in general (on board, on deck); the second emphasizes being inside the ship — e.g. in a cabin or interior space.

In most neutral contexts, laivalla is the more natural choice for “on the boat”. Laivassa is used when you want to underline being inside the structure.

How would the sentence change if I used a full relative clause instead of laivalla istuva runoilija?

A common equivalent with a joka-relative clause would be:

Runoilija, joka istuu laivalla, kirjoittaa muistikirjaan, kun sumu peittää meren.

This means essentially the same:

The poet, who is sitting on the boat, is writing in a notebook when the fog covers the sea.

Differences:

Laivalla istuva runoilija is compact and common in written/literary style.
Runoilija, joka istuu laivalla, … is slightly more explicit, often easier for learners to parse at first, and very natural in both spoken and written Finnish.

Both are grammatical and acceptable; it’s mostly a style choice.

Can the kun-clause go first, like Kun sumu peittää meren, laivalla istuva runoilija…? Does the comma change?

Yes, you can put the kun-clause first:

Kun sumu peittää meren, laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa muistikirjaan.

This is fully grammatical and natural. The meaning is the same; the difference is just emphasis:

Original: focus starts on the poet and what he is doing, then adds when it happens.
Reordered: focus starts on the time/situation (fog covering the sea), then tells what happens then.

Comma rule:

You still must have a comma between the main clause and the subordinate kun-clause, regardless of order:
- Main , kun Subordinate
- Kun Subordinate , Main

What’s the difference between sumu peittää meren and meri peittyy sumuun?

Both can describe a similar real-world situation but from different angles:

sumu peittää meren
- sumu = fog (subject)
- peittää = covers (transitive verb)
- meren = the sea (object)
- Literally: the fog covers the sea.
meri peittyy sumuun
- meri = sea (subject)
- peittyy = is getting covered / becomes covered (intransitive or reflexive-like)
- sumuun = into fog (illative)
- Literally: the sea gets covered in fog / disappears into fog.

So:

peittää focuses on what the fog does to the sea.
peittyy focuses on what happens to the sea because of the fog.

Both are correct; they just choose a different grammatical subject and perspective.

If I want to say “writes in his notebook”, how do I mark possession on muistikirjaan?

To express his/her own notebook, Finnish typically uses a possessive suffix:

muistikirja (notebook)
illative: muistikirjaan (into a notebook)
with 3rd-person possessive suffix: muistikirjaansa

So you would say:

Laivalla istuva runoilija kirjoittaa muistikirjaansa, kun sumu peittää meren.
= The poet sitting on the boat writes in *his/her notebook when the fog covers the sea.*

Notes:

muistikirjaan = in a / the notebook (no explicit owner)
muistikirjaansa = in his/her own notebook (owner is the subject, here the poet)