Opettajan puhe oli selkeä.

The teacher’s speech was clear.

Breakdown of Opettajan puhe oli selkeä.

• olla: to be
• selkeä: clear
• opettajan: the teacher's
• puhe: the talk

Questions & Answers about Opettajan puhe oli selkeä.

Why is opettaja in the form opettajan here?

Opettajan is the genitive singular of opettaja (teacher).

In Finnish, when you show possession or a close relationship between two nouns (like teacher’s speech), the first noun usually goes into the genitive:

• opettaja → opettajan (teacher → teacher’s / of the teacher)
• opettajan puhe = the teacher’s speech / the speech of the teacher

So opettajan puhe literally means “teacher’s speech” in the sense of “the speech that belongs to / comes from the teacher.”

What exactly does puhe mean, and how is it different from puhuminen or puhu-?

All three are related, but they’re different word types:

• puhu- is the verb stem: puhua = to speak, to talk
• puhuminen = speaking, the act of speaking (a verbal noun, like speaking / talking in English)
• puhe = speech, talk (a noun, often about:
  • a speech as an event (e.g. a lecture, a talk)
  • someone’s manner of speaking or spoken output

In this sentence, puhe means the teacher’s spoken language / way of speaking / speech, which was clear. It’s more about what was heard (or the style of it) than about the ongoing activity of speaking (puhuminen).

Why is puhe in the basic form and not puhetta?

Here puhe is the subject of the sentence:

• Opettajan puhe = the teacher’s speech (subject)
• oli = was (verb)
• selkeä = clear (predicate adjective)

Subjects normally appear in the nominative singular (the dictionary form), which for this word is puhe.

Puhetta is the partitive singular form. You would use puhetta as a subject in special cases (like expressing something incomplete, ongoing, or non‑countable), for example:

• Opettajalla oli puhetta tunnilla. = The teacher had some speech / there was some talking in the class.

Here, the sentence states a complete, definite thing: “The teacher’s speech was clear”, so puhe in the nominative is natural.

What does oli mean, and how is it related to on?

Both are forms of the verb olla (to be).

• on = is (3rd person singular, present tense)
• oli = was (3rd person singular, past tense)

So:

• Opettajan puhe on selkeä. = The teacher’s speech is clear.
• Opettajan puhe oli selkeä. = The teacher’s speech was clear.

The sentence you gave is clearly in the past tense.

Why is selkeä in that form? Could it be selkeää instead?

Selkeä is an adjective meaning clear (easy to understand, well-structured).

In sentences like this, the adjective that describes the subject (the predicative adjective) normally appears in the nominative singular, agreeing in number with the subject:

• puhe oli selkeä = the speech was clear
• puheet olivat selkeitä = the speeches were clear (here selkeitä is partitive plural)

You can sometimes use the partitive form selkeää as a predicative, but it adds nuance:

• Puhe oli selkeä. = The speech was clear (a full, definite quality).
• Puhe oli selkeää. = The speech was (kind of / in terms of its quality) clear; often more about the nature or degree of clarity, sometimes slightly softer or more descriptive, or focusing on clarity as an ongoing quality rather than a complete verdict.

In everyday standard use, oli selkeä is the straightforward, neutral way to say was clear.

What’s the difference between selkeä and selvä?

Both can translate as clear, but they’re used a bit differently:

• selkeä

  • clear in the sense of easy to understand, logically structured
  • often used of language, speech, design, text, layout, explanations
  • selkeä puhe = clear speech (easy to follow)

• selvä

  • clear as in obvious, unambiguous, distinct
  • also OK / agreed (Selvä! = All right!)
  • another meaning: sober (not drunk) – olla selvin päin / olla selvä

You could say Opettajan puhe oli selvä, and it would be understood, but selkeä is more idiomatic when talking about how understandable the speech is.

Why does Finnish say opettajan puhe, instead of something like puhe opettajan?

In Finnish, a possessor (or similar “of X” relationship) almost always comes before the thing it modifies, in the genitive case:

• opettajan puhe = teacher’s speech
• ystävän kirja = friend’s book
• koiran häntä = dog’s tail

Putting it after, like puhe opettajan, is ungrammatical in standard Finnish in this meaning.

Word order within that noun phrase is quite fixed:

• [GENITIVE possessor] + [head noun]
  • opettajan puhe
  • not puhe opettajan

Could I rearrange the sentence, like Selkeä oli opettajan puhe?

Yes, but with a change in emphasis.

The neutral, most common order is:

• Opettajan puhe oli selkeä.
  
  • Focus is neutral; you’re just stating a fact.

Other possible orders:

• Selkeä oli opettajan puhe.

  • More stylistic / literary / contrastive. Emphasis shifts to selkeä:
    
    • “Clear, that was the teacher’s speech.”
    • Often used when contrasting with something that wasn’t clear.

• Opettajan puhe selkeä oli.

  • Feels poetic, archaic, or strongly marked in modern Finnish.

So yes, some reordering is possible, but Opettajan puhe oli selkeä is the normal everyday version.

Why doesn’t Finnish have a word for “the” in this sentence?

Finnish has no articles (no a/an and no the at all).

Definiteness and indefiniteness are expressed by:

• context
• word order
• sometimes pronouns or other words

So opettajan puhe can mean:

• the teacher’s speech
• a teacher’s speech

Depending on what has already been mentioned or is obvious from the situation. In most realistic contexts, you’d understand it as the teacher’s speech because you typically know which teacher is being talked about.

How would I say “the teacher’s speeches were clear” using this pattern?

You need the plural of both the noun and the adjective, and the past tense of olla in plural:

• opettajan puhe = the teacher’s speech (singular)
• opettajan puheet = the teacher’s speeches (nominative plural)

Then:

• Opettajan puheet olivat selkeitä.
  
  • puheet = speeches (subject, plural)
  • olivat = were (3rd person plural past of olla)
  • selkeitä = clear (adjective in partitive plural, common with plural predicates)

So: Opettajan puheet olivat selkeitä. = The teacher’s speeches were clear.

Why isn’t there a possessive ending like puheensa or puheensa oli selkeä?

Finnish has two main ways to mark possession:

1. Genitive possessor:

   • opettajan puhe = the teacher’s speech

2. Possessive suffix attached to the noun:

   • puheeni = my speech
   • puheesi = your (sg) speech
   • puheensa = his/her/their speech

In your sentence, we are explicitly naming the possessor with a noun (opettaja), so the normal structure is:

• opettajan puhe oli selkeä.

A form like opettajan puheensa is possible only in special, more literary or reflexive contexts, and it wouldn’t be the natural way to express this simple idea.

To say “my speech was clear”, you would typically use a possessive suffix:

• Puheeni oli selkeä. = My speech was clear.

Here puheeni already shows possession, so you wouldn’t add minun unless you want extra emphasis:

• Minun puheeni oli selkeä. (with emphasis on my).