Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.

This decision is unfair.

Breakdown of Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.

• olla: to be
• tämä: this
• päätös: the decision
• epäoikeudenmukainen: unfair

Questions & Answers about Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.

What are the individual parts of epäoikeudenmukainen, and what do they mean literally?

The long adjective epäoikeudenmukainen is built from several pieces:

• epä- = a negative prefix, similar to English un-, in-, im-, non-
• oikeus = right, justice, law
• oikeuden = the genitive form of oikeus (“of right / of justice”)
• mukainen = according to, in accordance with

So literally it’s something like:

epä + oikeuden + mukainen
“not in accordance with justice/right”

which corresponds to unjust / unfair in natural English.

Why is epäoikeudenmukainen at the end of the sentence?

Finnish basic word order is often similar to English S–V–C (Subject–Verb–Complement):

• Tämä päätös = This decision (subject)
• on = is (verb)
• epäoikeudenmukainen = unjust (predicative adjective / complement)

So:

Tämä päätös (S) on (V) epäoikeudenmukainen (C).

Putting the adjective at the end is the most neutral way to say “This decision is unjust.” Other orders are possible for emphasis, but this is the standard one.

Why is it on and not olla?

olla is the dictionary form (the infinitive) meaning to be.

Finnish conjugates verbs for person and number. For olla in the present tense:

• minä olen = I am
• sinä olet = you are
• hän / se on = he / she / it is
• me olemme = we are
• te olette = you (pl.) are
• he / ne ovat = they are

The subject tämä päätös (“this decision”) is 3rd person singular, so you need on:
Tämä päätös on … = “This decision is …”

What grammatical form is päätös, and what does it come from?

Päätös is in the nominative singular, used for the subject of the sentence.

Base noun: päätös = decision
It comes from the verb päättää = to decide.

This is a common pattern in Finnish:

• päättää (to decide) → päätös (a decision)
• puhua (to speak) → puhe (speech)
• opiskella (to study) → opiskelu (studying)

There is consonant gradation in the verb–noun pair:

• päättää (tt) → päätös (t)

Why is there no word for “the” in Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen?

Finnish has no articles at all: no a/an, no the.

Definiteness (whether you mean “a decision” or “the decision”) is expressed through:

• context, and
• demonstratives like tämä (this), tuo (that over there), se (that/it).

Here, tämä päätös clearly means “this decision” (a specific one). Finnish doesn’t need an extra word like the.

What’s the difference between tämä, se, and tuo?

All three can translate as this/that/it, but with different nuances:

• tämä = this (near the speaker, or being strongly pointed out)
• tuo = that (over there) (visibly more distant from the speaker)
• se = that / it (often used for things already known in context, not necessarily physically pointed at)

In this sentence:

• Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.
  → Very clearly “This decision is unjust” (the one we’re focusing on now).

You could also hear:

• Se päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.
  → “That decision is unjust,” referring to a decision already mentioned.

But tämä gives the clearest “this one right here” feeling.

Can the word order be changed, for example Epäoikeudenmukainen on tämä päätös?

Yes, but the tone changes.

• Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.
  = Neutral statement: “This decision is unjust.”

• Epäoikeudenmukainen on tämä päätös.
  = Emphatic / dramatic: “Unjust, that’s what this decision is.”
  (You’re highlighting the quality unjust.)

Finnish allows fairly flexible word order for emphasis, but the basic neutral word order in simple sentences is the one you were given.

Why is epäoikeudenmukainen in this form and not something like epäoikeudenmukaista?

You are seeing a contrast between nominative and partitive predicatives.

• Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.

  • epäoikeudenmukainen = nominative singular
  • This presents the statement as categorical / complete:
    “This decision is unjust (as a clear judgment).”

• Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukaista.

  • epäoikeudenmukaista = partitive singular
  • This can sound more like describing a quality/amount of injustice, or a more “subjective / ongoing” evaluation.
    It’s possible, but less straightforward for beginners and often sounds more nuanced or stylistic.

In basic usage, when you say “X is Y” and Y is a normal adjective, you’ll usually see the nominative form, like in the original sentence.

Can I also say Tämä on epäoikeudenmukainen päätös? Is it the same?

Yes, and it’s very natural Finnish. The nuance is slightly different:

1. Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen.

   • “This decision is unjust.”
   • Focus is on this decision and its quality.

2. Tämä on epäoikeudenmukainen päätös.

   • “This is an unjust decision.”
   • Focus is more on classifying this as a member of the group “unjust decisions”.

Both are correct and common. In real life, both can usually be translated the same way in English.

How would I say this sentence in the past tense: “This decision was unjust”?

You just change the verb on (“is”) to the past tense oli (“was”):

• Tämä päätös oli epäoikeudenmukainen.
  = “This decision was unjust.”

How do I make the comparative and superlative of epäoikeudenmukainen (“more/most unjust”)?

Adjectives form comparative and superlative in a fairly regular way.

For epäoikeudenmukainen:

• Comparative (more unjust):
  epäoikeudenmukaisempi

  • Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukaisempi kuin se.
    = This decision is more unjust than that one.

• Superlative (most unjust):
  epäoikeudenmukaisin

  • Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukaisin kaikista.
    = This decision is the most unjust of all.

The sentence structure with on stays the same; only the adjective changes form.

How is Tämä päätös on epäoikeudenmukainen pronounced, and where is the stress?

Approximate pronunciation (using English-like spelling):

• Tämä ≈ “TA-mah”
• päätös ≈ “PAA-tos” (long ää like “aa” in “father” but longer)
• on ≈ “on” (like English “on” but shorter)
• epäoikeudenmukainen ≈ “EH-pa-oy-keu-den-mu-kai-nen”

Primary stress in Finnish is always on the first syllable of each word:

• TÄmä
• PÄÄtös
• ON
• EpäOIkeuDENmuKAInen
  (secondary stresses can appear later in long words)

Also note:

• ä is like the a in “cat”.
• Double vowels (like ää) are really long vowels and must be held longer.

Does epä- always mean something negative? How is it different from ei?

Yes, epä- is a negative prefix attached directly to nouns and adjectives:

• varma (sure) → epävarma (unsure)
• ystävällinen (friendly) → epäystävällinen (unfriendly)
• reilu (fair) → epäreilu (unfair)

In epäoikeudenmukainen, it’s doing the same: turning “according to justice” into “not according to justice.”

ei is different:

• ei is a separate negative verb, used in conjugated forms like en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät:
  • Se ei ole oikeudenmukainen. = “It is not just.”

So:

• epä- = a bound prefix that creates a new word.
• ei = a stand-alone negative verb used in the sentence structure.

How does the adjective agree with the noun in the plural, e.g. “These decisions are unjust”?

In plural, both the noun and the adjective change, and the verb agrees with them:

• Nämä päätökset ovat epäoikeudenmukaisia.

Breakdown:

• Nämä = these (plural of tämä)
• päätökset = decisions (plural nominative of päätös)
• ovat = are (3rd person plural of olla)
• epäoikeudenmukaisia = partitive plural of epäoikeudenmukainen

You may also see:

• Nämä päätökset ovat epäoikeudenmukaiset.

Both forms are possible; epäoikeudenmukaisia (partitive plural) is very common and natural in this kind of evaluative statement.

Is there a simpler or more everyday way to say “This decision is unjust / unfair” in Finnish?

Yes. A much more colloquial and common word than epäoikeudenmukainen is epäreilu (“unfair”):

• Tämä päätös on epäreilu.
  = “This decision is unfair.”

Epäoikeudenmukainen sounds more formal / legal / academic.
Epäreilu sounds more everyday and conversational.