Learn Hardcore Finnish: On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan. - It is unfair to blame another person before hearing the whole story.

On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.

It is unfair to blame another person before hearing the whole story.

Breakdown of On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.

Why does the sentence start with On and have no explicit subject like “se” (“it”)?

Finnish often uses an impersonal construction where English uses a dummy subject it.

On epäoikeudenmukaista...
= It is unfair...

There is no word for “it” here. The verb on (“is”) stands alone, and the idea or situation described by the rest of the sentence functions as the logical subject:

On vaikea ymmärtää tätä.
= It is hard to understand this.

Using se (Se on epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista...) is possible, but it changes the feel slightly: then you are referring to some previously mentioned thing (“That is unfair...”). The version without se is more general and abstract, like a statement about how things are in general.

Why is it epäoikeudenmukaista and not epäoikeudenmukainen?

Epäoikeudenmukainen is the basic dictionary form (nominative singular) of the adjective “unfair.”
In the sentence, we have epäoikeudenmukaista, which is the partitive singular form.

This form appears because:

The adjective is used with an infinitive clause as its “subject”:
- On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista...
  Literally: To accuse another (person) … is unfair.
  In Finnish, in such general impersonal statements, the predicative adjective commonly takes the partitive.
Using the partitive here makes it feel like a general, non-specific evaluation:
- On väärin valehdella. (It is wrong to lie.)
- On tärkeää kuunnella. (It is important to listen.)
- On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista. (It is unfair to accuse another.)

So epäoikeudenmukainen → epäoikeudenmukaista because it serves as a predicative in an impersonal, general statement with an infinitive.

Why is syyttää in the basic dictionary form (infinitive) here?

Syyttää is in the 1st infinitive form (the form you find in the dictionary) because it’s part of an infinitive structure after on:

On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista...
→ It is unfair *to accuse another (person)...*

This pattern is very common:

On vaikea ymmärtää tätä.
→ It is difficult *to understand this.*
On hauska nähdä sinut.
→ It is nice *to see you.*

The infinitive verb (syyttää) is what you “do” that is being described as unfair (epäoikeudenmukaista).

What does toista mean exactly, and why is it in that form instead of toinen?

Toinen means “the other” or “another”.

In the sentence, we have:

syyttää toista
→ literally: to accuse the other / another (person)
→ idiomatically: to accuse someone else / another person

Toista is the partitive singular of toinen:

nominative: toinen (another, the other)
partitive singular: toista

It appears here because syyttää (“to accuse”) is a verb that normally takes its object in the partitive when talking about accusing someone of something in general:

Hän syyttää minua.
→ He/she accuses me.
On väärin syyttää toista.
→ It is wrong to accuse another (person).

So toista is “another person” in the role of a partitive object of the verb syyttää.

Why does syyttää take the partitive (toista) and not some “full object” form?

In Finnish, some verbs regularly govern the partitive case for their objects, regardless of whether the action is “complete” or not, especially with psychological / evaluative meanings.

Syyttää (to accuse, blame) is one of them. It typically takes its object in the partitive:

Hän syyttää minua. (He/she accuses me.)
Älä syytä häntä. (Don’t blame him/her.)
On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista. (It is unfair to accuse another person.)

So the use of partitive here is mostly lexical (a property of the verb syyttää), not about incomplete vs complete action.

What exactly does ennen kuin mean, and why are there two words?

Ennen kuin is a two-word conjunction meaning “before (something happens)” when followed by a full clause (a verb in a personal form).

ennen = before (in time)
kuin = here functions as a conjunction (literally “as/than”), but in this phrase it helps form the unit “before that...”

Use ennen kuin when it’s followed by a finite verb:

En syö, ennen kuin pesen kädet.
→ I won’t eat *before I wash my hands.*
On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.
→ It is unfair to accuse another person *before (one) hears the whole story.*

If ennen is followed directly by a noun, then you don’t use kuin:

Ennen ruokaa. = Before food / before the meal.
Ennen iltaa. = Before evening.

So:

ennen + noun → no kuin
ennen kuin + clause (verb) → with kuin

Who is the subject of kuulee (“hears”)? Why is there no pronoun like “hän” or “ihminen”?

Kuulee is 3rd person singular present (“he/she/one hears”), but here it functions as a generic, impersonal subject, similar to English “one” or casual “you”:

...ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.
→ literally: ...before (one) hears the whole story.
→ more naturally: ...before hearing the whole story.

In Finnish, it is common to omit the pronoun in such generic statements:

Kun tekee virheen, oppii.
→ When one makes a mistake, (one) learns.
Ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan, ei pitäisi syyttää.
→ Before one hears the whole story, one shouldn’t accuse.

You could explicitly say:

...ennen kuin ihminen kuulee koko tarinan.
but it sounds heavier and less natural in this general moral statement. The dropped subject with 3rd person singular is the usual style.

Why is there a comma before ennen kuin? Is it required?

Yes, in standard written Finnish, a comma is used before subordinate clauses like the one introduced by ennen kuin when the main clause comes first:

On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.
= Main clause, then comma, then subordinate clause.

The same pattern applies with other conjunctions:

Lähden kotiin, koska olen väsynyt.
En mene ulos, jos sataa.

If you reverse the order, you still normally keep the comma:

Ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan, on epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista.

So the comma is part of normal Finnish punctuation marking the boundary between main and subordinate clauses.

Why is it koko tarinan and not koko tarina or koko tarinaa?

koko = “whole, entire”
tarina = “story”

With koko, the noun usually appears in the genitive singular when it is a singular object:

base form: tarina
genitive singular: tarinan

So koko tarinan = “the whole story”.

This phrase is the object of kuulee:

kuulee tarinan = hears the story
kuulee koko tarinan = hears the whole story

Why not koko tarina?

Koko tarina can appear, for example, as a subject:
- Koko tarina on tosi. = The whole story is true.
  But as an object in this pattern, koko
  - genitive is normal.

Why not koko tarinaa?

Tarinaa is partitive; that would shift the meaning (hearing just some of the story, or in an ongoing / incomplete way). Here, the idea is very specifically: the entire story. Hence koko tarinan.

Can I change the word order, for example: Ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan, on epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista?

Yes, that word order is perfectly correct and natural:

On epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.
Ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan, on epäoikeudenmukaista syyttää toista.

Both mean the same thing. Changing the order can slightly change emphasis:

Original: focus more on the evaluation (It is unfair to accuse...) and then add the condition.
Reordered: focus first on the condition (Before hearing the whole story...) then state the evaluation.

Grammatically, both are fine.

What is the difference between epäoikeudenmukaista and epäreilua for “unfair”? Could I say On epäreilua syyttää toista?

You can absolutely say:

On epäreilua syyttää toista, ennen kuin kuulee koko tarinan.

The difference is mostly in style and nuance:

epäoikeudenmukainen / epäoikeudenmukaista
- more formal, legal, or moral tone
- closer to “unjust, inequitable, unfair in terms of justice or rights.”
epäreilu / epäreilua
- more colloquial, everyday speech
- like saying “unfair / not fair” in casual English, e.g. about a game, situation, teacher’s decision, etc.

In this sentence, epäoikeudenmukaista sounds a bit more serious and principled, but epäreilua is entirely understandable and correct, just more casual in tone.