Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

The dessert is sweet and a bit sour, but not at all bitter.

Breakdown of Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

• olla: to be
• ja: and
• mutta: but
• ei: not
• jälkiruoka: the dessert
• hieman: a bit
• ollenkaan: at all
• makea: sweet
• hapan: sour
• karvas: bitter

Questions & Answers about Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

Why is jälkiruoka used without any word like the or a? How do I know if it means “the dessert” or “a dessert”?

Finnish has no articles (no the, a, or an). The bare noun jälkiruoka can mean:

• the dessert
• a dessert
• dessert (in general)

Context decides what is meant.
In a real conversation, this sentence would usually refer to a specific dessert that both speakers know about, so we naturally translate it as “The dessert is …” in English. But grammatically, nothing in the Finnish form itself marks “definiteness” or “indefiniteness”.

Why are the adjectives makea, hapan, and karvas in this base form and not makeaa, hapanta, karvasta?

Here, makea, hapan, and karvas are predicative adjectives describing the subject jälkiruoka.

When a singular countable subject (like jälkiruoka) is identified or described as a whole, the predicative adjective usually appears in the nominative singular, agreeing with the subject:

• Jälkiruoka on makea. – The dessert is sweet (as a whole).
• Jälkiruoka on hapan. – The dessert is sour.

You can also sometimes see the partitive (makeaa, hapanta, karvasta) used in similar sentences. That usually:

• makes the description feel more about the quality in some amount, not the whole item as a unit,
• or sounds a bit more neutral/“descriptive of the taste” rather than classifying the dessert.

So:

• Jälkiruoka on makea. – The dessert (this dessert) is sweet.
• Jälkiruoka on makeaa. – The dessert tastes sweet / is on the sweet side (a bit more like describing a property).

Both are grammatically correct; the sentence you gave uses the more “whole-item” type description.

Why is it on makea ja hieman hapan and not on makea ja on hieman hapan?

In Finnish, you don’t repeat the verb when it’s shared by two (or more) adjectives like this.

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan.
  Literally: The dessert is sweet and slightly sour.

The verb on (“is”) applies to both makea and hieman hapan.
Repeating it (on makea ja on hieman hapan) is grammatically possible but sounds heavier and is only used for special emphasis or stylistic reasons. In normal speech and writing, you don’t repeat it here.

What exactly does hieman mean, and how is it different from vähän?

Both hieman and vähän can mean “a little / slightly”, but their feel is slightly different:

• hieman
  
  • slightly, a bit
  • more neutral and a bit more formal/written
• vähän
  
  • a little, a bit
  • very common in speech, can also mean “a small amount (of something)”

In this sentence:

• hieman hapan = slightly sour / a bit sour.

You could also say:

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja vähän hapan.

That would be understood the same way; it just sounds a bit more informal/colloquial.

What does ollenkAAn mean in ei ollenkaan karvas, and can I use it in positive sentences?

Ollenkaan means “at all” in negative sentences.

• ei ollenkaan karvas = not bitter at all.

It is practically only used with negation. Typical patterns:

• ei ollenkaan + adjective
  
  • ei ollenkaan kallis – not expensive at all
• ei ollenkaan + noun in partitive
  
  • ei ollenkaan sokeria – no sugar at all

In positive sentences, you normally don’t use ollenkaan. Instead you’d say things like:

• hyvin makea – very sweet
• aivan karvas – quite bitter

So ollenkaan is a “negative-friendly” intensifier similar to English “at all” after not.

Why is it ei ollenkaan karvas and not something like on ei karvas or ei on karvas?

Finnish handles negation with a special negative verb ei, which is conjugated instead of the main verb:

• olla (to be)
  
  • affirmative: hän on – he/she is
  • negative: hän ei ole – he/she is not

The pattern is: subject + ei + (ole) + predicative.

In your sentence, the ole is simply left out because it’s understood from the first clause:

• Full form: Jälkiruoka ei ole ollenkaan karvas.
• Shortened in the second clause (after mutta): … mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

You cannot say on ei karvas or ei on karvas; that is ungrammatical.
The correct negative structure is always with ei in front:

• ei ole karvas
• shortened here to ei karvas when the verb is understood.

Is the verb ole really allowed to be omitted in ei ollenkaan karvas?

Yes. In coordinated clauses, Finnish often omits elements that are obvious from the previous clause, especially the verb olla.

Full, “complete” version:

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta jälkiruoka ei ole ollenkaan karvas.

Natural Finnish omits repeated parts:

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

The subject (jälkiruoka) and the verb (on / ole) are understood from the context. This is very typical and sounds more natural than repeating everything.

Could the word order be ei karvas ollenkaan instead of ei ollenkaan karvas?

Yes, ei karvas ollenkaan is also possible and understood.

However, the most neutral and common word order is:

• ei ollenkaan karvas – not at all bitter.

This order:

1. puts the negation ei first,
2. adds the intensifier ollenkaan,
3. then gives the thing being described: karvas.

Ei karvas ollenkaan is more like “…not bitter, at all”, with ollenkaan tagged on for emphasis at the end. It’s fine, but ei ollenkaan karvas is the more standard default.

Why is there a comma before mutta in …, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas?

In Finnish, when mutta (“but”) links two clauses, you usually put a comma before it.

Here, there are two clauses:

1. Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan – has the verb on.
2. (Jälkiruoka) ei (ole) ollenkaan karvas – has the negative verb ei (and an omitted ole).

Because both parts function as clauses with their own (explicit or understood) verb, a comma before mutta is correct:

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

Why is mutta used here instead of vaan?

Both mutta and vaan can translate as “but”, but they are used in different situations.

• mutta
  
  • general contrast: but, however
• vaan
  
  • typically after a negation, meaning but rather / but instead,
  • used to correct or replace something said before.

Example with vaan:

• Ei se ole makea, vaan hapan.
  – It’s not sweet, but (rather) sour.

In your sentence, we are not correcting the first part. We’re just adding a contrasting property:

• It is sweet and slightly sour, but it is not bitter.

So mutta is the natural choice:

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

Could I say Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, eikä ollenkaan karvas instead?

You could, but it changes the feel slightly.

• mutta ei ollenkaan karvas

  • simple contrast: but not at all bitter.

• eikä ollenkaan karvas

  • eikä = ja ei, “and not”; it sounds like you’re adding another negative feature to a list of characteristics, often after something already negative.

For example, eikä is more typical in chains like:

• Se ei ole makea, eikä se ole hapan.
  – It is not sweet, and it is not sour.

In your original sentence, where the first part is positive and the second is negative, mutta ei… is more natural than eikä….
So the original wording is stylistically better.

Can I change the word order to something like Makea ja hieman hapan on jälkiruoka, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas?

That word order is grammatically possible, but it sounds unusual and marked in normal conversation.

Standard, neutral word order is:

• Jälkiruoka on makea ja hieman hapan, mutta ei ollenkaan karvas.

Putting the adjectives first (Makea ja hieman hapan on jälkiruoka…) makes the sentence sound:

• poetic,
• or like you’re strongly emphasizing the qualities first and only then revealing that you’re talking about the dessert.

For everyday Finnish, keep the original order with jälkiruoka at the beginning.