Learn Hardcore Finnish: Uudenvuodenaattona kadut on usein suljettu, koska raketteja ammutaan torilla. - On New Year’s Eve the streets are often closed because rockets are launched in the market square.

uusi = new
vuosi = year
aatto = eve (the day/evening before a holiday)
uuden vuoden aatto = the eve of the new year
In compounds, you often add a linking -n, and the whole phrase becomes one word:
uudenvuodenaatto = New Year’s Eve
Then you inflect that compound noun:
uudenvuodenaattona = on New Year’s Eve

So uudenvuodenaattona literally means “on New-Year’s-Eve” and is just the essive case (-na) of the compound noun uudenvuodenaatto.

What grammatical case is the ending -na in aattona, and why does it mean “on New Year’s Eve”?

The ending -na/-nä is the essive case.

In time expressions, Finnish often uses the essive to mean “on / at (a certain time or occasion)”:

maanantaina – on Monday
jouluna – at Christmas
syntymäpäivänäni – on my birthday
uudenvuodenaattona – on New Year’s Eve

So aattona is essive singular of aatto (“eve”), and in this kind of expression the essive naturally gets the meaning “on (that day)”.

Why is kadut plural, but the verb is singular on, not ovat?

This is because on suljettu is not agreeing with kadut; it’s part of a passive perfect construction.

kadut = “the streets” (nominative plural)
on suljettu = “have been closed” (passive perfect: has/have been closed)

The structure is like:

Kadut on suljettu.
= “The streets have been closed.”
(literally closer to “They have closed the streets.”)

In Finnish passive perfect, the verb is always 3rd person singular (on, oli, on suljettu, etc.), regardless of how many things were affected. The affected thing (kadut) is treated as a (nominative) object, not as the grammatical subject.

So you do not say kadut ovat suljettu, because the verb is not “agreeing” with kadut; it is part of the fixed passive-perfect form on suljettu.

What exactly does on suljettu mean grammatically, and how is it different from suljetaan?

On suljettu is the passive perfect of sulkea (to close):

suljetaan = present passive: “(they) close / are closing / will close”
- Kadut suljetaan. – The streets are (being) closed.
on suljettu = perfect passive: “have been closed”
- Kadut on usein suljettu. – The streets have often been closed / are often closed (as a result of having been closed).

So:

suljetaan focuses on the action in progress or scheduled.
on suljettu focuses on the resulting state after the action has been done.

In English we usually translate on suljettu as either “have been closed” or just “are closed” depending on context.

Could you also say Kadut ovat usein suljettuja or Kadut ovat usein suljetut? How are these different from Kadut on usein suljettu?

Yes, you can, and they are a bit different grammatically and in nuance:

Kadut on usein suljettu.
- Passive perfect: “The streets have often been closed / are often closed.”
- Emphasis on the action done by someone (authorities, etc.).
- Very common and natural.
Kadut ovat usein suljettuja.
- suljettuja = plural partitive of an adjectival form = “closed (ones)”
- “The streets are often in a closed state.”
- Feels a bit more like describing an ongoing or typical state, less like “they’ve been closed by someone right now.”
Kadut ovat usein suljetut.
- suljetut = plural nominative adjective “closed”
- “The streets are often closed.”
- More straightforwardly adjectival: the streets have the property “closed”.

All three can be understood, but Kadut on usein suljettu (passive perfect) is very idiomatic for talking about closures done by authorities on certain occasions.

Why is raketteja in the partitive plural instead of raketit?

Raketteja is the partitive plural of raketti (“rocket”).

Finnish uses the partitive plural when:

You talk about an indefinite number / not all of them:
Raketteja ammutaan torilla. – (Some) rockets are fired in the square.
The quantity is not fully specified or you’re speaking in general, not about a known complete set.

If you said:

Raketit ammutaan torilla.
that usually implies all the (specific) rockets (for example, the official fireworks of the city) will be fired there.

So:

raketteja ammutaan ≈ “they fire rockets (some amount)” / “rockets are fired” (indefinite)
raketit ammutaan ≈ “the rockets are fired” (a specific, complete set)

In this context, raketteja fits better because we’re talking about fireworks in general, not about a clearly defined, counted set.

What does ammutaan mean grammatically, and how is it formed from ampua?

Ammutaan is the present passive of the verb ampua (“to shoot, to fire”).

Personal forms:
- minä ammun – I shoot
- sinä ammut – you shoot
- he ampuvat – they shoot
Passive:
- ammutaan – “(it) is shot / (they) shoot”

Formation:

Verb stem: ampua → stem ammu- (consonant gradation: mp → mm)
Add the passive ending -taan → ammutaan

In the sentence:

raketteja ammutaan torilla
literally: “rockets are shot/fired in the square”
natural English: “they fire rockets in the square” or “rockets are fired in the square.”

The passive hides the subject; we don’t say kuka (who) is doing it.

Why is torilla used, and what does the ending -lla mean here?

Torilla is the adessive case of tori (“market square”):

tori – (a) market square
torilla – at the (market) square, in the square

The adessive case -lla/-llä often means:

“on” a surface: pöydällä – on the table
“at / by / in (an open area):
- asemalla – at the station
- pihalla – in the yard
- torilla – at/in the (market) square

For most Finns, torilla is the normal, idiomatic form for being at the town square, which is an open area.
torissa (inessive “in the square”) would sound strange in this meaning, unless you were talking about being inside some enclosed place called “tori” (like a market hall).

Why is there a comma before koska, and can the koska-clause come first?

In Finnish, you normally put a comma before a subordinating conjunction like koska (“because”) when it introduces a subordinate clause:

Kadut on usein suljettu, koska raketteja ammutaan torilla.

So the comma is required by standard Finnish punctuation rules.

You can also put the koska-clause at the beginning:

Koska raketteja ammutaan torilla, kadut on usein suljettu.

The meaning stays the same:
“Because rockets are fired in the square, the streets are often closed.”
or
“The streets are often closed because rockets are fired in the square.”

Why is kadut in the nominative (kadut) and not in the partitive (katuja) in kadut on usein suljettu?

This has to do with the distinction between total vs partial object in Finnish, especially in passive perfect.

Kadut on usein suljettu.
- kadut = total object (nominative)
- The idea is: the streets (as a whole) have been closed.
- The action is seen as completed and affects the whole set of streets in question.

Compare:

Katuja on suljettu.
- katuja = partitive plural
- “(Some) streets have been being closed.” / “There has been street-closing going on.”
- This suggests an ongoing or partial process, not necessarily that all relevant streets are now closed.

So kadut (nominative plural) signals a completed action with a total object, which fits the idea that “on New Year’s Eve, the streets (we’re talking about) are often closed.”

Is the word order raketteja ammutaan torilla fixed, or could it be Torilla ammutaan raketteja? Does the order change the meaning?

Both orders are grammatically correct:

Raketteja ammutaan torilla.
Torilla ammutaan raketteja.

In Finnish, word order is relatively flexible. Changing the order usually affects emphasis more than basic meaning:

Raketteja ammutaan torilla.
– Neutral, perhaps slightly focused on what is happening (rockets being fired).
Torilla ammutaan raketteja.
– Slightly more emphasis on where it’s happening (in the square).

In everyday speech and writing, both versions would be understood the same way; the difference is mostly about which element you want to highlight.