Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.

I have both a cat and a dog at home.

Breakdown of Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.

• minä: I
• kotona: at home
• koira: the dog
• kissa: the cat
• sekä: as well as

Questions & Answers about Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.

What does Minulla on literally mean, and why is it used for I have?

Finnish doesn’t have a separate verb meaning to have. Instead, it uses a structure that literally means on me is.

• Minulla = on me (adessive case of minä, “I”)
• on = 3rd person singular of olla (to be)

So Minulla on is literally There is on me, which corresponds to English I have.

This X-lla on pattern is the normal way to express possession:

• Minulla on auto. – I have a car.
• Hänellä on koira. – He/She has a dog.

Why is it Minulla and not minä? What case is minulla?

Minulla is the adessive case of minä (I). The adessive ending is -lla / -llä and usually means on, at, or with.

• minä (nominative) – I
• minulla (adessive) – on/at me

In Finnish, possession is typically expressed by putting the possessor in the adessive:

• Minulla on kissa. – I have a cat. (lit. On me is a cat.)
• Opettajalla on kirja. – The teacher has a book. (lit. On the teacher is a book.)

So minä on kissa is ungrammatical; you must use minulla on for “I have”.

Why doesn’t the Finnish sentence have a before kissa and koira, like “a cat” and “a dog”?

Finnish has no articles at all—no equivalent of English a/an or the.

Nouns like kissa and koira are just in their bare form, and context tells you whether you mean a cat, the cat, or cats in a generic sense. Here:

• kissa – a/the cat
• koira – a/the dog

So:

• Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.
  → I have both a cat and a dog at home.

The “a” and “the” are added in English translation, but not present as separate words in Finnish.

What cases are kissa and koira in here, and why that case?

Both kissa and koira are in the nominative singular, which is the basic dictionary form.

In possession sentences of the type X-lla on Y, the thing that is owned (Y) is usually in the nominative if it is a whole, countable item:

• Minulla on kissa. – I have a (whole) cat.
• Minulla on koira. – I have a (whole) dog.

You would use the partitive (e.g. kissaa, koiraa) if you talked about an indefinite amount, partialness, or in some negative sentences:

• Minulla ei ole kissaa. – I don’t have a cat.
• Minulla on vettä. – I have (some) water.

But here, you are just stating you own one full cat and one full dog, so nominative kissa, koira is correct.

What exactly does sekä … että mean? Is it just and?

Sekä … että corresponds to both … and in English.

In this sentence:

• sekä kissa että koira = both a cat and a dog

Compared to plain ja (and):

• kissa ja koira – a cat and a dog
• sekä kissa että koira – both a cat and a dog (slightly stronger, more explicit pairing)

Sekä … että often sounds a bit more emphatic or formal than just ja, and it highlights that both items are included.

Can I use sekä … että with verbs or longer phrases, not just nouns?

Yes. Sekä … että can connect many types of elements: nouns, adjectives, verbs, or even whole clauses.

Examples:

• Hän sekä laulaa että tanssii.
  – He/She both sings and dances.

• Talo on sekä vanha että kaunis.
  – The house is both old and beautiful.

• Sekä opiskelijat että opettajat pitävät kurssista.
  – Both the students and the teachers like the course.

So in your sentence it joins two nouns (kissa, koira), but the pattern is much more general.

How is sekä … että different in nuance from just using ja?

Functionally they can often translate the same way, but there is a nuance:

• kissa ja koira – cat and dog (neutral listing)
• sekä kissa että koira – both cat and dog (more symmetrical, emphasizes inclusion of both)

Sekä … että:

• tends to sound slightly more formal or written;
• makes the structure of “two equal things” more explicit;
• is often preferred when you want to stress “not just one, but also the other”.

In everyday casual speech, people often just use ja, but sekä … että is never wrong.

What does kotona mean grammatically, and how is it different from kotiin or kotoa?

Kotona is the inessive case of koti (home), and it means at home / in the home.

Singular forms of koti with location meanings:

• koti – home (base form)
• kotona – at home, in the home (inessive: static location “in/at”)
• kotiin – to home, homewards (illative: movement to a place)
• kotoa – from home (elative: movement from a place)

In your sentence:

• kotona = at home
• Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.
  → I have both a cat and a dog at home.

There is no separate preposition like “at”; the case ending -na on koto- expresses that idea.

Could I move kotona elsewhere? For example: Minulla on kotona sekä kissa että koira?

Yes. Finnish word order is relatively flexible, and kotona can move, as long as the sentence remains clear:

• Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.
• Minulla on kotona sekä kissa että koira.
• Kotona minulla on sekä kissa että koira.

All are grammatical and mean essentially I have both a cat and a dog at home, but they differ in emphasis:

• Sentence starting with Kotona emphasizes the place first.
• Putting kotona earlier (after on) can make the location feel more backgrounded/neutral or stylistically smoother in some contexts.

The original version is perfectly natural and clear.

Is kotona describing where I am, or where the cat and dog are?

In this structure, kotona is interpreted as the location of the cat and the dog, not necessarily your own physical location at the moment of speaking.

So the natural reading is:

• “I have both a cat and a dog [which are] at home.”

It doesn’t say where you are right now; it says where the pets are.

Can I say this sentence in spoken colloquial Finnish? Does Minulla change?

In colloquial spoken Finnish, minulla is very often reduced to mulla:

• Standard: Minulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.
• Colloquial: Mulla on sekä kissa että koira kotona.

Other pronouns behave similarly:

• sinulla → sulla
• hänellä → sillä (in some dialects; also sillä can mean “it”)

You’ll hear Mulla on kissa or Mulla on koira all the time in everyday speech, but in writing and in formal contexts Minulla is preferred.

How would I say I don’t have either a cat or a dog at home in Finnish?

You need three key changes:

1. The verb becomes negative: ei ole.
2. The objects go into the partitive: kissaa, koiraa.
3. Sekä … että becomes eikä … eikä (neither … nor).

So:

• Minulla ei ole kotona kissaa eikä koiraa.
  = I don’t have a cat or a dog at home / I have neither a cat nor a dog at home.

Note:

• ei ole is the negative of on for all persons in this kind of existential sentence.
• With negation, singular countable objects usually switch from nominative (kissa) to partitive (kissaa).