Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupauksen, jonka tein uudenvuodenaattona.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupauksen, jonka tein uudenvuodenaattona.

Why does Tammikuussa have the ending -ssa? There’s no word for “in” in the Finnish sentence.

Finnish usually expresses “in [month/season]” with the inessive case (the ending -ssa / -ssä) instead of a separate preposition.

  • tammikuu = January
  • tammikuussa = in January (literally “in January” using the inessive case)

You do not say *tammikuu in, because prepositions like English in / on / at are largely replaced by case endings in Finnish.

This -ssa ending is also very typical in time expressions like:

  • kesällä (actually adessive -lla, but similar idea) = in summer
  • talvella = in winter
  • syksyllä = in autumn

So Tammikuussa yritän… = In January I’ll try…

Could the time expression Tammikuussa go somewhere else in the sentence? For example: Yritän toteuttaa lupauksen tammikuussa. Is that OK?

Yes, that is perfectly fine and natural.

Possible word orders include:

  • Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupauksen…
    – puts extra emphasis on when (January is the topic).
  • Yritän tammikuussa toteuttaa lupauksen…
    – neutral; focuses a bit more on the act of trying.
  • Yritän toteuttaa lupauksen tammikuussa.
    – also neutral; the time comes at the end, like in English.

Finnish word order is relatively flexible. The meaning stays the same; what changes is which part is slightly emphasized or what you present as “old/given” information versus “new” information.

Why is yritän in the present tense, even though the English translation is “I will try”?

Finnish often uses the present tense to talk about the future, especially when the future is fairly certain or planned:

  • Huomenna menen töihin. = Tomorrow I’ll go to work.
  • Ensi viikolla tapaan hänet. = Next week I’ll meet him/her.

So:

  • Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupauksen…
    literally: In January I try to fulfill the promise…
    natural English: In January I will try to fulfill the promise…

There is a separate verb aikoa (“to intend, to plan”), but that adds an extra nuance:

  • Tammikuussa aion yrittää toteuttaa lupauksen.
    = In January I intend to try to fulfill the promise.
    (stronger emphasis on your intention/plan.)
Why is toteuttaa in the basic dictionary form after yritän? Could it be something like yritän toteuttamaan?

After yrittää (to try), Finnish normally uses the 1st infinitive (the plain -a/ä form):

  • yritän ymmärtää = I try to understand
  • yritän nukkua = I try to sleep
  • yritän toteuttaa = I try to carry out / fulfill

So:

  • yritän toteuttaa is correct.
  • *yritän toteuttamaan is not correct in standard Finnish.

The pattern is:

yrittää + 1st infinitive
yritän + [dictionary form of the verb]

What exactly does toteuttaa mean here? Is it the same as “do” or “keep” a promise?

toteuttaa literally means to carry out, to realize, to implement.

For lupaus (promise), the usual idiomatic verb is:

  • toteuttaa lupaus = to fulfill / carry out a promise

Other verbs with lupaus:

  • pitää lupaus = to keep a promise
  • rikkoa / rikkoa lupaus = to break a promise
  • antaa lupaus = to give / make a promise

In this sentence, toteuttaa lupauksen is very close in meaning to keep the promise, with a nuance of “make it come true, carry it through.”

Why is lupauksen in that form? Why not just lupaus?

lupauksen is the genitive singular form of lupaus (promise). Here it functions as a total object, often called the genitive-accusative.

  • lupaus = a promise (nominative, dictionary form)
  • toteuttaa lupauksen = to fulfill the promise (total object)

Key idea:
When the action is completed / total, the object is usually in genitive (accusative) form:

  • Luen kirjan. = I will read the (whole) book.
  • Syön omenan. = I eat the (whole) apple.
  • Toteutan lupauksen. = I (will) fulfill the promise.

If the action is ongoing / partial, you see the partitive:

  • Luen kirjaa. = I am (in the process of) reading a/the book.
  • Syön omenaa. = I am eating (some) apple.
  • Yritän toteuttaa lupausta. = I’m trying to (start / partly) fulfill a promise. (focus on the process, not completion)

In your sentence, toteuttaa lupauksen implies the promise is thought of as something to be fully carried out.

Why do we use jonka and not joka or mitä in lupauksen, jonka tein…?

jonka is the genitive form of the relative pronoun joka (who/which/that) and must agree in case and number with its antecedent (lupauksen).

  • Antecedent: lupauksen (genitive singular)
  • Relative pronoun: jonka (genitive singular of joka)

Pattern:

  • nominative: joka (the one who/that/which)
  • genitive: jonka (whose / that …’s / which …’s)
  • partitive: jota
  • etc.

So:

  • lupaus, jonka tein = the promise that I made
  • literally: “the promise, which I made”

mitä is used in relative clauses mainly with abstract or “whole situation” antecedents, like:

  • Se on kaikki, mitä tiedän. = That’s all (that) I know.
  • Asia, josta puhuin (not mitä here; josta is from joka)

Because lupaus is a concrete countable noun, joka/jonka is the correct relative pronoun, not mitä.

Why is the verb in the relative clause tein (past tense), not a perfect like olen tehnyt?

Both are possible, but the nuance differs:

  • jonka tein uudenvuodenaattona
    = the promise that I made on New Year’s Eve (simple past event, just locating it in time)

  • jonka olen tehnyt uudenvuodenaattona
    = the promise that I have made on New Year’s Eve (emphasizes the continuing relevance/result of that past action; sounds a bit heavier or more formal here)

In everyday speech and writing, simple past (tein) is very common for single, finished past actions located in time, especially with an explicit time expression like uudenvuodenaattona (on New Year’s Eve).

Why is uudenvuodenaattona written as one long word, and what are its parts?

uudenvuodenaattona is a compound noun plus a case ending. It breaks down like this:

  1. uuden vuoden aatto

    • uuden = of the new
    • vuoden = of the year
    • aatto = eve

    Together: “the eve of the new year”.

  2. In actual usage this becomes the compound noun:

    • uudenvuodenaatto = New Year’s Eve (fixed compound word)
  3. Then we add the adessive case ending -na (variant of -lla/-llä for time):

    • uudenvuodenaattona = on New Year’s Eve

So:

  • Base noun: uudenvuodenaatto = New Year’s Eve
  • Adessive form: uudenvuodenaattona = on New Year’s Eve
Why does uudenvuodenaattona use the adessive case (-na) instead of -ssa like tammikuussa?

Finnish uses different cases for different kinds of time expressions:

  • Adessive (-lla/-llä, -na/-nä) is common for days, dates, and specific occasions:

    • maanantaina = on Monday
    • jouluna = at Christmas
    • syntymäpäivänäni = on my birthday
    • uudenvuodenaattona = on New Year’s Eve
  • Inessive (-ssa/-ssä) is more typical for longer periods like months, seasons, years:

    • tammikuussa = in January
    • keväällä (adessive form of kevät but idea is similar) = in (the) spring
    • vuonna 2025 (adessive as well) = in the year 2025

So:

  • tammikuussa → a whole month, a period
  • uudenvuodenaattona → one specific day/eve

Different case, different type of time reference.

Why is there no minä in yritän? In English we say “I try”.

In Finnish, the personal ending on the verb usually makes the subject pronoun unnecessary:

  • yritän = I try / I will try
    (the -n ending = 1st person singular)

So:

  • yritän toteuttaa lupauksen = I (will) try to fulfill the promise
  • minä yritän toteuttaa lupauksen is also correct, but minä is only added for emphasis or contrast:
    • Minä yritän, mutta sinä et. = I try, but you don’t.

In your sentence, it’s natural and normal not to include minä.

Is there any difference between Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupauksen, jonka tein… and Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa sen lupauksen, jonka tein…?

Yes, a small nuance:

  • toteuttaa lupauksen, jonka tein…
    → “fulfill the promise that I made on New Year’s Eve”
    The identity of the promise is clear from the relative clause.

  • toteuttaa sen lupauksen, jonka tein…
    → “fulfill that promise that I made on New Year’s Eve”
    The word sen (that) adds a bit of emphasis or contrast, as if there were several promises and you are pointing to this specific one.

Both are grammatically correct. Without extra context, most Finns would use the version without sen, as in your original sentence.

How would the sentence change if I had made several promises on New Year’s Eve?

If you clearly mean more than one promise, you change both lupaus and the relative pronoun to plural:

Singular (your original pattern):

  • lupauksen, jonka tein
    = the promise that I made

Plural:

  • lupaukset, jotka tein
    = the promises that I made

Examples:

  • Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupaukset, jotka tein uudenvuodenaattona.
    = In January I will try to fulfill the promises that I made on New Year’s Eve.

If you want to emphasize that you won’t necessarily fulfill them all, you could use the partitive plural to hint at partialness:

  • Tammikuussa yritän toteuttaa lupauksia, jotka tein uudenvuodenaattona.
    = In January I’ll try to (start to / partly) fulfill the promises I made on New Year’s Eve. (focus more on the effort than on full completion)