Learn Hardcore Finnish: Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle. - If we don’t prune the bushes next to the fence, they grow too much onto the path.

Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.

If we don’t prune the bushes next to the fence, they grow too much onto the path.

Breakdown of Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.

What is the role of jos in this sentence, and does it work exactly like English if?

Jos is a subordinating conjunction meaning if. It introduces a conditional clause:

Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä = If we don’t cut/trim the bushes next to the fence
ne kasvavat liikaa polulle = they will grow too much onto the path.

It works very similarly to English if here. The main differences are:

Finnish typically uses the present tense in both parts, even when English uses a future “will grow”.
The comma is required in Finnish when the jos-clause comes first:
- Jos …, …
- …, jos … (no comma before jos if it comes second in modern standard usage).

Why is it emme karsi and not something like emme karsii or emme karsimme?

The Finnish negative is built with a special negative verb plus a form of the main verb:

Negative verb for we = emme
Main verb is in the connegative form = the stem used with negation, here karsi

So:

Affirmative: me karsimme = we trim / we trimmed (context decides time)
Negative: emme karsi = we do not trim

You never add personal endings to the main verb in a negative sentence. All person/number information is in emme, so the main verb stays in the bare form karsi, not karsimme or karsii.

Where is the subject we? Why is there no me in Jos emme karsi?

In Finnish, the personal ending or the negative verb itself already shows the subject, so the pronoun is usually omitted unless you want to emphasize it.

emme = we do not
So Jos emme karsi… literally = If (we) do not trim…

You can say Jos me emme karsi pensaita… for emphasis (e.g. If we don’t trim them (as opposed to someone else)), but the neutral everyday version drops me and just uses emme.

What exactly does karsia mean here? Is it just to cut, like leikata?

Karsia is more specific than a generic to cut:

karsia = to prune, trim, thin out, cut back (especially plants/trees, or to reduce the number of things)
leikata = to cut (very general: hair, paper, bread, surgery, etc.)

In this sentence, karsia pensaita means to cut back / prune the bushes, not just any random cutting. It suggests you’re reducing or trimming back their growth, not chopping them down completely.

Why is it pensaita and not pensaat?

Pensaita is the partitive plural of pensas (bush). Object nouns in Finnish often use the partitive for three main reasons:

Negation
In negative sentences, the object is normally partitive:
- Emme karsi pensaita. = We don’t (trim) bushes.
- Compare positive: Karsimme pensaat. = We trimmed the bushes (fully/definitively).
Partial / not-complete action
Pensaita can suggest trimming some of the bushes or trimming them partially, not necessarily a complete “all done” action.
Unspecified quantity
When you mean “some bushes” (not a clearly defined set), partitive plural pensaita is more natural than definite-looking pensaat.

So pensaita is correct both because of the negative verb (emme) and because the trimming is not presented as a single, fully completed, all-bushes action.

What does aidan vierestä literally mean, and why does it use -stä?

Breakdown:

aita = fence
aidan = of the fence (genitive singular)
vieri = side, edge, immediate vicinity
vierestä = from (the) side of / from beside (elative case: -sta / -stä)

So aidan vierestä literally = from beside the fence.

The elative case (-sta/-stä) often indicates movement or origin from inside or from a close area. Here it’s “from the area right by the fence.” It emphasizes removal from that location (trimming bushes that are near the fence).

What is the difference between aidan vieressä and aidan vierestä?

aidan vieressä (inessive: -ssa / -ssä) = by the side of the fence, next to the fence (static location, where something is)
- Pensaat ovat aidan vieressä. = The bushes are next to the fence.
aidan vierestä (elative: -sta / -stä) = from by the side of the fence, from next to the fence (movement/origin, from where something is taken/removed)
- Karsimme pensaita aidan vierestä. = We trimmed bushes (taken) from the area next to the fence.

In your sentence, emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä focuses on removing/trimming them from that zone next to the fence, so vierestä (elative) is the natural choice.

What does ne refer to, and could it be left out?

Ne is the third-person plural pronoun = they.

Here it refers back to pensaat (the bushes). Even though pensaita is partitive, the idea is still a plural group of bushes, so the pronoun is ne, not se.

ne kasvavat liikaa polulle = they grow too much onto the path.

About leaving it out:

In Finnish, 3rd person pronouns can often be omitted when the subject is clear from context:
- Kasvavat liikaa polulle. could theoretically mean They grow too much onto the path.
In this particular sentence, including ne makes the reference very clear and sounds natural in everyday style.
Omitting ne is grammatical but feels more written/literary or slightly heavier in style, especially with the subordinate clause before it.

So: ne is not strictly required, but it’s very natural and clear to keep it.

Why is the verb kasvavat in the present tense even though English uses “will grow”?

Finnish does not have a separate future tense. The present tense is used for:

Present time
Future events
General truths / habitual actions

Context tells you which it is. Here:

ne kasvavat liikaa polulle = literally they grow too much onto the path,
but in context with jos it means: they will grow too much onto the path.

So Finnish: Jos emme karsi…, ne kasvavat…
English: If we don’t trim…, they *will grow…*

The future meaning is carried by the if-structure and context, not by a separate tense form.

What exactly does liikaa mean, and is it the same as liian paljon?

Liikaa is an adverb meaning too much / excessively.

ne kasvavat liikaa polulle = they grow too much onto the path (more than is desirable).

Relation to liian paljon:

liian paljon = too much, too many (literally: “too many/much”).
liikaa often overlaps in meaning with liian paljon, especially with verbs:
- Hän puhuu liikaa. ≈ Hän puhuu liian paljon. = He talks too much.

In your sentence, liikaa is smooth and idiomatic.
You could also say ne kasvavat liian paljon polulle, but liikaa is shorter and more natural here.

Why is it polulle and not polulla or polulle päin?

From polku = path:

polulla (adessive) = on the path (static location: where something is)
polulle (allative) = onto the path / to the path (movement towards/onto a surface or area)

The sentence describes bushes growing into the space of the path, i.e. movement into/onto the path, so allative polulle is used:

ne kasvavat liikaa polulle = they grow too much onto/into the path.

Polulle päin would emphasize “towards the path” without necessarily entering it fully. Polulle alone already captures the idea that they are encroaching onto the path.

Could the word order be changed, for example Jos emme aidan vierestä karsi pensaita?

Finnish word order is relatively flexible, so several variants are grammatically fine:

Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.
Jos emme aidan vierestä karsi pensaita, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.
Jos emme karsi aidan vierestä pensaita, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.

The standard, neutral order is usually:

Verb phrase
Object
Place expressions

So karsi pensaita aidan vierestä feels very typical.

Moving aidan vierestä earlier (emme aidan vierestä karsi…) is possible but slightly more marked, giving extra emphasis to from beside the fence (“if we don’t trim specifically from next to the fence…”).

Could this sentence use the conditional mood, like karsisimme and kasvaisivat? What would change?

Yes, you could make a more hypothetical or less certain version using the conditional mood:

Jos emme karsisi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvaisivat liikaa polulle.

Meaning difference:

Present indicative (original):
- Jos emme karsi…, ne kasvavat…
- A real, likely consequence: If we don’t (in fact) trim them, they (will) grow too much…
Conditional:
- Jos emme karsisi…, ne kasvaisivat…
- More hypothetical, speculative, or polite: If we didn’t trim them, they would grow too much…

Your original sentence is about a realistic, expected outcome, so the indicative is the natural choice.

Why is there a comma after the jos-clause in Finnish? Is it always required?

In Finnish, a subordinate clause introduced by jos is separated from the main clause with a comma when it comes first:

Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.

This is a standard punctuation rule:

[Subordinate clause], [Main clause].
[Main clause] jos [subordinate clause].

So:

Correct: Jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä, ne kasvavat liikaa polulle.
Also correct: Ne kasvavat liikaa polulle, jos emme karsi pensaita aidan vierestä.

The comma marks the boundary between the condition and the result.