Romaanin päähenkilö on nuori opettaja, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin.

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

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Romaanin päähenkilö on nuori opettaja, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin.

In the phrase Romaanin päähenkilö, what does the ending -n in Romaanin mean, and why isn't it just romaani?

The -n on romaanin is the genitive singular ending. It usually corresponds to English of or to the possessive ’s.

  • romaani = a novel
  • romaanin = of the novel / the novel’s

So Romaanin päähenkilö literally means the novel’s main character or the main character of the novel.

This structure is very common in Finnish:

  • kirjan kansi = the book’s cover / the cover of the book
  • elokuvan ohjaaja = the film’s director / the director of the film

The possessed noun (päähenkilö) stays in its own case (here nominative), and the owner (romaani) goes into the genitive romaanin.

What does the compound word päähenkilö literally mean, and how do Finnish compounds like this work?

Päähenkilö is a compound of:

  • pää = head, main, principal
  • henkilö = person

Together: päähenkilö = literally main person, i.e. main character / protagonist.

In Finnish compounds:

  • The last part is the core meaning (here: henkilö, a person).
  • The earlier part(s) specify or narrow it (here: pää, making it the main/principal person).
  • It’s written as one word in standard Finnish.

More examples:

  • pääkaupunki = main city → capital (pää + kaupunki)
  • työpaikka = work + place → workplace, job
  • opettajahuone = teacher + room → staff room

So Romaanin päähenkilö is structurally “the novel’s main-person”.

Why are both Romaanin päähenkilö and nuori opettaja in the basic (nominative) form?

This is a classic X is Y sentence:

  • Romaanin päähenkilö = subject (who/what is something?)
  • on = is
  • nuori opettaja = predicative (what the subject is)

In Finnish, in a simple present-tense “being” sentence like X on Y, both X and Y are usually in the nominative:

  • Romaanin päähenkilö on nuori opettaja.
  • Isäni on lääkäri. = My father is a doctor.
  • Tämä kaupunki on pieni. = This city is small.

So:

  • päähenkilö (main character) and
  • nuori opettaja (young teacher)

are both in nominative because they are equated: the novel’s main character = a young teacher.

Why is nuori opettaja “a young teacher” and not “the young teacher”? How does Finnish show “a” vs “the” when there are no articles?

Finnish has no articles (a, an, the), so the bare form nuori opettaja can mean:

  • a young teacher (indefinite)
  • the young teacher (definite)

Which one is correct depends on context, not grammar.

In this sentence, the definite thing is already identified:

  • Romaanin päähenkilö = a particular, definite main character.

We are telling what that definite person is by typea young teacher fits best in English.

If the context had already introduced a specific teacher and you were just describing them, you might translate nuori opettaja as the young teacher. Finnish leaves this to context; English forces you to choose an article in translation.

Why is there a comma before joka: ..., joka muuttaa Helsinkiin? Do Finnish relative clauses always have a comma?

Yes: in standard written Finnish you normally put a comma before a subordinate clause, including relative clauses introduced by joka.

  • Romaanin päähenkilö on nuori opettaja, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin.

The part joka muuttaa Helsinkiin is a subordinate (relative) clause modifying nuori opettaja. Finnish spelling rules require a comma before such clauses, even when in English you often don’t use a comma:

  • the young teacher who moves to Helsinki (no comma in English)
  • nuori opettaja, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin (comma in Finnish)

So the comma is not marking “non‑essential” vs “essential” like in English; it mostly just marks the start of the subordinate clause.

What does joka mean here, and what is its grammatical role?

Joka is a relative pronoun, roughly like English who / that.

In this sentence:

  • It refers back to nuori opettaja (young teacher).
  • It is the subject of the relative clause.

So:

  • nuori opettaja, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin
    = the young teacher who moves to Helsinki

Grammatically:

  • joka is in the nominative (subject form).
  • It agrees in number with its antecedent (singular here).
  • In other cases it changes form:
    • jonka (genitive: whose, of whom/which)
    • jota (partitive)
    • jossa (inessive: in which)
    • etc.

Here, because “who” is simply doing the action “moves”, we use the nominative joka.

Why isn’t there a separate pronoun like hän in the relative clause? Why not joka hän muuttaa Helsinkiin?

The relative pronoun joka itself functions as the subject, so you do not add another subject pronoun like hän.

  • Correct: joka muuttaa Helsinkiin = who moves to Helsinki
  • Incorrect: joka hän muuttaa Helsinkiin

That would be like saying in English: “who he moves to Helsinki”, which is ungrammatical. The subject is already expressed by joka, so Finnish does not repeat it.

Is muuttaa here an infinitive (“to move”) or a conjugated verb (“moves”)? Why does it look like the dictionary form?

In dictionaries you see the basic verb form (1st infinitive), for this verb: muuttaa.

For type 1 verbs like muuttaa, the 3rd person singular present looks identical to that infinitive:

  • infinitive: muuttaa = to move / to change
  • 3rd person singular: hän muuttaa = he/she moves / changes

Conjugation (present):

  • minä muutan
  • sinä muutat
  • hän muuttaa
  • me muutamme
  • te muutatte
  • he muuttavat

So here, muuttaa is a finite verb: “(who) moves”. We know this because:

  • it appears after joka (a subject),
  • it has no auxiliary/future marker, and
  • this is the normal finite form: hän muuttaa → “he/she moves”.

The fact that it looks like the infinitive is just a coincidence of this verb type. Context tells us it’s conjugated.

Does muuttaa mean “to move (house)” or “to change”? Which meaning does it have in this sentence?

Muuttaa has two main meanings:

  1. To move, change residence (often intransitive)

    • muuttaa Helsinkiin = move to Helsinki
    • He muuttavat uuteen asuntoon. = They are moving to a new flat.
  2. To change (something) (transitive)

    • muuttaa suunnitelmaa = to change the plan
    • muuttaa mieltään = to change one’s mind

In this sentence:

  • joka muuttaa Helsinkiin
    clearly means who moves to Helsinki (change of residence), because there is a destination in an “into” case (Helsinkiin). There is no direct object that could be “changed”.
What case is Helsinkiin, and what does it express?

Helsinkiin is the illative case, which typically expresses movement into something or to a place (thought of as an area you go into).

For place names using the internal series:

  • Helsinki = Helsinki (basic form)
  • Helsinkiin = into/to Helsinki (illative, direction towards)
  • Helsingissä = in Helsinki (inessive, location inside)
  • Helsingistä = from (out of) Helsinki (elative, from inside)

So:

  • muuttaa Helsinkiin = move to Helsinki (i.e. into the city as a place of residence).
Why is the ending in Helsinkiin spelled -iin? Where does the extra i come from?

The basic form is Helsinki, ending in -i. For many -i words, the illative is formed with:

  • stem + -in, and the i lengthens to ii.

So:

  • Helsinki → stem Helsinki-
    • -inHelsinkiin

You see the same pattern in other -i place names and words of the same type:

  • järvi (lake) → järveen (into the lake) – different type
  • Ruotsi (Sweden) → Ruotsiin (to Sweden)
  • Pariisi (Paris) → Pariisiin (to Paris)

The important thing for a learner: -iin here is the visible sign of the illative (“into/to Helsinki”).

Why isn’t it Helsinkille or another case? When do you use -iin vs -lle for locations?

Finnish has two main sets of local cases:

  1. Internal (inside something): -ssa/-ssä, -sta/-stä, -Vn / -in (= illative forms like Helsinkiin)
  2. External (on/at a surface): -lla/-llä, -lta/-ltä, -lle

For cities and countries, Finnish normally uses the internal set:

  • Helsingissä = in Helsinki
  • Helsingistä = from Helsinki
  • Helsinkiin = to Helsinki

So muuttaa Helsinkiin is the standard way to say move to Helsinki.

The external set (-lle, etc.) is more for surfaces, points, or recipients:

  • pöydälle = onto the table
  • ystävälle = to a friend (as a recipient)

You would not say *muuttaa Helsinkille in standard Finnish.

How does nuori work grammatically with opettaja? Do adjectives have to agree in case and number?

Yes. In Finnish, an attributive adjective normally agrees with the noun in:

  • case
  • number

In the basic nominative singular:

  • nuori opettaja = a young teacher

If you change the case or number, they change together:

  • nuoren opettajan (genitive singular) = of the young teacher
  • nuorta opettajaa (partitive singular) = (of) a young teacher
  • nuoret opettajat (nominative plural) = young teachers
  • nuorille opettajille (allative plural) = to young teachers

In the sentence:

  • nuori and opettaja are both nominative singular, matching the role of the phrase as the predicative: nuori opettaja.
What exactly does the relative clause joka muuttaa Helsinkiin modify? Does it describe Romaanin päähenkilö or nuori opettaja?

It modifies nuori opettaja.

Structure:

  • Romaanin päähenkilö = the novel’s main character
  • on = is
  • nuori opettaja = a young teacher
  • , joka muuttaa Helsinkiin = who moves to Helsinki

So the person who moves to Helsinki is the young teacher, i.e. the main character.

If you wanted it to clearly modify Romaanin päähenkilö instead, you’d either rely on the same structure (context does that anyway), or rephrase. But as it stands, the natural reading is:

The main character of the novel is a young teacher who moves to Helsinki.

Can I change the word order, for example: Nuori opettaja on romaanin päähenkilö, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin? Does that change the meaning?

You can change the word order:

  • Nuori opettaja on romaanin päähenkilö, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin.

Grammatically, this still means the same thing: the young teacher is the main character of the novel, who moves to Helsinki.

However, word order in Finnish is used for emphasis / information structure:

  • Original: Romaanin päähenkilö on nuori opettaja, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin.
    → starts from “the novel’s main character” (topic: the book / its structure).

  • Alternative: Nuori opettaja on romaanin päähenkilö, joka muuttaa Helsinkiin.
    → starts from “a young teacher” (topic: this person), then identifies them as the main character.

Both are correct; the difference is about what you introduce first / focus on, not basic grammar.