Tänään katson toisen jakson illalla.

Today I will watch the second episode in the evening.

Breakdown of Tänään katson toisen jakson illalla.

• minä: I
• tänään: today
• katsoa: to watch
• illalla: in the evening
• toinen: second
• jakso: the episode

Questions & Answers about Tänään katson toisen jakson illalla.

Why is katson in the present tense when the English translation is “I will watch”?

Finnish doesn’t have a separate future tense the way English does.
The present tense is used for:

• actions happening now: Nyt katson televisiota. – “Now I’m watching TV.”
• planned or certain future actions: Tänään katson toisen jakson. – “Today I’ll watch the second episode.”

The idea of “future” is usually clear from context or from time words like tänään, huomenna, illalla, etc. So katson can mean “I watch”, “I am watching”, or “I will watch”, depending on the context.

Why do both toisen and jakson end in -n?

The phrase toisen jakson is the object of the verb katson, and it is in the genitive (accusative) form, showing a complete, bounded object (“the whole second episode”).

• toinen → toisen (genitive singular)
• jakso → jakson (genitive singular)

When an adjective (or ordinal like toinen) describes a noun in the genitive, both must agree and take the same case:
toisen jakson = “the second episode” as a complete object (“I will watch it from start to finish / as a whole episode”).

What is the difference between toisen jakson and toista jaksoa?

Both mean “the second episode”, but the case changes the meaning of the sentence:

• Katson toisen jakson.
  Genitive/accusative object → total object
  = “I will watch the (whole) second episode.”

• Katson toista jaksoa.
  Partitive object → partial/ongoing action
  = “I am watching the second episode (for some time / not necessarily finishing it).”

So toisen jakson suggests a complete, planned viewing of the episode; toista jaksoa focuses more on the ongoing action, not on completion.

What case is illalla, and why not illan or illassa?

Illalla is in the adessive case (ending -lla / -llä), and with times of day it typically means “in the … / at …”:

• aamu → aamulla – in the morning
• päivä → päivällä – in the daytime
• ilta → illalla – in the evening
• yö → yöllä – at night

So illalla = “in the evening / this evening”.
Illan (genitive) would mean “of the evening”, and illassa (inessive) would literally be “in the evening” in a more spatial sense, which is not how Finnish normally expresses clock time. For time of day, illalla is the idiomatic form.

Can I change the word order, for example to Katson tänään illalla toisen jakson?

Yes, Finnish word order is flexible, and this is grammatically correct:

• Tänään katson toisen jakson illalla.
• Katson tänään illalla toisen jakson.
• Illalla katson tänään toisen jakson. (less usual, but possible with special emphasis)

The meaning stays essentially the same; you’re just changing what you emphasize.
Putting tänään first, as in the original, slightly emphasizes “today” as the framework for what happens. Moving elements around in Finnish usually affects focus and emphasis, not basic meaning.

Why are there two time expressions, tänään and illalla? Aren’t they redundant?

They overlap, but they’re not exactly the same:

• tänään = “today” (the day as a whole)
• illalla = “in the evening” (the part of the day)

Together, Tänään katson toisen jakson illalla makes it clear that:

• this is happening today, and
• specifically in the evening of today.

You could say just Illalla katson toisen jakson (“This evening I’ll watch the second episode”) or just Tänään katson toisen jakson, but using both is natural if you want to be very clear or emphasize today, in the evening (not tomorrow evening, etc.).

Could toisen here mean “another” instead of “second”? How do you know?

Toinen can mean both:

1. second (ordinal number)
2. the other / another

In Tänään katson toisen jakson illalla, both interpretations are possible in isolation:

• “Today I’ll watch the second episode in the evening.”
• “Today I’ll watch another episode in the evening.”

Context usually decides which meaning is intended:

• If you’re talking about episode numbers (jakso 1, jakso 2, …), it means “second”.
• If you’ve already watched some episode(s) and just mean “one more episode”, it can mean “another”.

So grammatically both are correct; only context tells you which is meant.

Why is it jakson and not just jakso?

Jakso is the nominative form (dictionary form).
As the object of katson with a complete action, it takes the genitive/accusative ending -n:

• nominative: jakso
• genitive/accusative: jakson

Compare:

• Jakso on hyvä. – “The episode is good.” (subject → nominative)
• Katson jakson. – “I will watch the episode.” (object, total → genitive/accusative)

In toisen jakson, both words must be in the same case, so jakso becomes jakson.

How would I say the same idea in the past tense?

You just put the verb katsoa into the past tense (imperfekti) and keep the rest the same:

• Tänään katsoin toisen jakson illalla.
  = “Today I watched the second episode in the evening.”

Forms:

• katson (present, “I watch / I will watch”)
• katsoin (past, “I watched”)

The objects and adverbs (toisen jakson, tänään, illalla) stay in the same forms.

How would I negate this sentence correctly?

To negate, Finnish uses the negative verb en + main verb in its connegative form:

• En katso toista jaksoa illalla.
  = “I will not watch the second episode in the evening.”

Key points:

• 1st person singular negative verb: en
• katsoa → katso (connegative form)
• The object becomes partitive (toista jaksoa) in a negative sentence, not toisen jakson.
  So:
  • affirmative: Katson toisen jakson.
  • negative: En katso toista jaksoa.