Learn Hardcore Finnish: Yksi katuvalo on rikki, joten risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta. - One streetlight is broken, so the intersection looks darker than usual.

Yksi katuvalo on rikki, joten risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta.

One streetlight is broken, so the intersection looks darker than usual.

Breakdown of Yksi katuvalo on rikki, joten risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Yksi katuvalo on rikki, joten risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta.

In this sentence, does yksi mean strictly “one” or can it also mean just “a streetlight”?

Yksi is literally the number “one”, but in everyday Finnish it often works like English “one / a certain”.

Here Yksi katuvalo on rikki most naturally means “One of the streetlights is broken” (out of several in that area).
It does not just mean “a streetlight is broken somewhere in the world”; it usually implies one of the relevant group (e.g. on that street).

You could make this even clearer as Yksi katuvaloista on rikki (“One of the streetlights is broken”), but it’s not necessary in context.

What exactly does the compound noun katuvalo mean, and could I also say katulamppu?

Katuvalo is a compound:

katu = street
valo = light

So katuvalo = “streetlight / street lamp”.

You can also hear katulamppu (katu + lamppu “lamp”), which is understandable and used, but katuvalo is very common and neutral. Both mean essentially the same thing in this context.

Why is on rikki used instead of a verb like “to break” in Finnish?

Finnish often describes a broken, non-functioning object with olla + rikki:

Lamppu on rikki. = “The lamp is broken (doesn’t work).”
Auto on rikki. = “The car is broken / out of order.”

Here on is the verb olla (“to be”) and rikki is an adjective/adverb meaning “broken, in pieces, not working”.

If you want to talk about the breaking event, you’d use a different verb, e.g.:

Katuvalo meni rikki. = “The streetlight broke / went out of order.”
Joku rikkoi katuvalon. = “Someone broke the streetlight.”

So on rikki describes the current state, not the action.

What does the conjunction joten mean, and how is it different from koska or siksi?

joten means “so, therefore” and introduces a result:

Yksi katuvalo on rikki, joten risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta.
= “One streetlight is broken, so the intersection looks darker than usual.”

Compare:

koska = “because”, introduces a reason
- Risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta, koska yksi katuvalo on rikki.
  “The intersection looks darker than usual because one streetlight is broken.”
siksi = “for that reason, that’s why”, often with koska:
- Yksi katuvalo on rikki, siksi risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta.
- Koska yksi katuvalo on rikki, risteys näyttää...

So:

koska = because
joten / siksi = so, therefore
The choice mainly affects which clause you present as cause vs. effect.

What does risteys mean exactly, and why is it in the basic form here?

risteys means “intersection, crossroads, junction” (where roads cross).

In risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta, risteys is the subject of the sentence, so it appears in the nominative (basic) form.

If you wanted to say “at the intersection”, you would inflect it:

risteyksessä = at the intersection
risteykseen = to the intersection
risteyksestä = from the intersection

But since here the intersection is just the thing that “looks darker”, nominative risteys is correct.

How does näyttää work here? Does it literally mean “to show” or “to look / seem”?

näyttää has two main meanings:

“to show” (transitive, takes an object)
- Näytän sinulle kuvan. = “I’ll show you a picture.”
“to look / seem / appear” (describing appearance)
- Risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta.
  = “The intersection looks darker than usual.”

In the second meaning, it often combines with:

an adjective in the ablative:
- näyttää hyvältä = looks good
- näyttää pahalta = looks bad
- näyttää tummemmalta = looks darker

So here näyttää = “looks / appears”, not “shows”.

Why does tummemmalta end with -lta, and what form of the adjective is this?

The base adjective is tumma (“dark”). Its comparative is:

tumma → tummempi (“darker”)

Then it’s put into the ablative case (-ltA), which regularly appears after näyttää when describing how something looks:

tummempi → tummemmalta

So tummemmalta means “(like) darker”, and the -lta is the ablative ending:

näyttää + (adjective in ablative) = “looks / seems (adjective)”
- näyttää tummalta = looks dark
- näyttää tummemmalta = looks darker

How is the comparative tummempi formed from tumma?

Finnish comparative of adjectives is usually formed by the suffix -mpi, often with some stem changes:

tumma → tummempi
- the -mm- is lengthened (from m)
- then -mpi is added → tummempi

Other examples:

halpa (cheap) → halvempi (cheaper)
kiva (nice) → kivempi (nicer)
pimeä (dark) → pimeämpi (darker)

Then you inflect the comparative form (tummempi) in different cases:

nominative: tummempi
genitive: tummemman
partitive: tummempaa
ablative: tummemmalta, etc.

Why is tavallista in the partitive case, and what exactly does tavallista tummemmalta mean?

The base adjective is tavallinen = “usual, ordinary”.

Here we have tavallista, which is its partitive singular. In comparisons, Finnish often uses a partitive form to express “than X”:

tavallinen → tavallista (as “than usual”)
Hän on minua pidempi. = “He is taller than me.”
Normaalia kylmempi. = “colder than normal.”

In tavallista tummemmalta:

tummemmalta = “(like) darker”
tavallista gives the reference level: “than usual”

So risteys näyttää tavallista tummemmalta =
“the intersection looks darker than (what is) usual.”

This is a compact Finnish way of saying “darker than usual”.

Are there other natural ways in Finnish to say “darker than usual” in this sentence?

Yes, several alternatives are possible, with slightly different nuance but similar meaning:

Risteys näyttää tummemmalta kuin tavallisesti.
“The intersection looks darker than usual.”
Risteys näyttää tavallista pimeämmältä.
“The intersection looks darker than usual.”
(using pimeä = dark, gloomy)
Risteys näyttää normaalia tummemmalta.
“The intersection looks darker than normal.”
Risteys on tavallista pimeämpi.
“The intersection is darker than usual.”
(using olla
- predicate instead of näyttää)

The original sentence is very idiomatic and common, but these are all acceptable too.

Does tummemmalta agree with risteys in some way, and could its form change?

Yes. tummemmalta is a predicative adjective describing risteys, and it agrees with it in number (singular) and case (ablative, because of näyttää).

Subject: risteys (singular)
Verb: näyttää
Predicative: tummemmalta (singular, ablative)

If the subject were plural, the predicative would also be plural:

Risteykset näyttävät tummemmilta.
“The intersections look darker.”

So its form can change depending on the subject and the grammatical structure, but in the original sentence, tummemmalta correctly matches risteys.