Talon edessä on pensas.

There is a bush in front of the house.

Breakdown of Talon edessä on pensas.

• olla: to be
• talo: the house
• edessä: in front of
• pensas: the bush

Questions & Answers about Talon edessä on pensas.

Why is it talon and not talo at the start of the sentence?

Talon is the genitive form of talo (house).

Many Finnish postpositions (words like edessä, alla, lähellä) require the word before them to be in the genitive.

Pattern:

• talo → talon edessä = in front of the house
• pöytä → pöydän alla = under the table
• kauppa → kaupan lähellä = near the shop

So the structure here is:

• talon (genitive: of the house)
• edessä (postposition: in front)

Together: talon edessä = in front of the house.

What exactly is edessä? Is it a preposition like English in front of?

Edessä is a postposition that literally means in front (of).

• It comes after the word it relates to (hence post-position, not preposition).
• It typically combines with a genitive: talon edessä = in front of the house.

Grammatically, edessä looks like an inessive form (the -ssä / -ssä ending), which often expresses being in/at a place. Here it’s used in a fixed expression meaning in front of.

You can think of it as one lexical item:

• talon edessä = in front of the house
  (not literally "at the front in the house", but a single unit of meaning)

Why is the order Talon edessä on pensas, and not Pensas on talon edessä?

Both word orders are possible, but they have different focus.

1. Talon edessä on pensas.

   • Typical existential sentence structure:
     
     • [place] + on (is) + [new thing].
   • Used to introduce something new:
     
     • In front of the house, there is a bush.

2. Pensas on talon edessä.

   • Topic is pensas (the bush); we’re saying where it is.
   • More like: The bush is in front of the house.
   • This is what you’d say if the bush is already known in the conversation.

So:

• To introduce the bush: Talon edessä on pensas.
• To talk about the location of a known bush: Pensas on talon edessä.

In English we say “There is a bush…”. Why is there no word for “there” in the Finnish sentence?

Finnish does not use a separate dummy word like there in there is / there are constructions.

Instead, it uses a pattern:

• [place phrase] + on (is/are) + [thing]

Examples:

• Talon edessä on pensas.
  = There is a bush in front of the house.
• Pöydällä on kirja.
  = There is a book on the table.

The place phrase (here: talon edessä) does the job that English there often does. So the sentence literally is:

• In front of the house is a bush.

English adds there; Finnish simply doesn’t need it.

Could I say Pensas on talon edessä instead? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, you can say Pensas on talon edessä, and it’s grammatically correct.

The difference is in information structure:

• Talon edessä on pensas.

  • Neutral way to introduce that there is a bush there.
  • Implicitly answers: What is in front of the house?

• Pensas on talon edessä.

  • The bush is already known; you now specify its location.
  • Answers: Where is the bush?

Meaning-wise, both describe the same physical situation. Pragmatically, they fit different contexts.

Why is it pensas and not pensasta? When do we use partitive for these “there is” sentences?

In Talon edessä on pensas, pensas is in the nominative (basic form) because:

• We are talking about one whole, countable bush.
• The quantity is clear and complete: exactly one.

In existential sentences (with on / ei ole) the subject can be:

• Nominative: when it’s a whole, countable, clearly delimited thing.
• Partitive: for indefinite amounts, mass nouns, or in negation.

Compare:

• Talon edessä on pensas.
  = There is a (single) bush in front of the house.

• Talon edessä on pensaita.
  = There are (some) bushes in front of the house.
  (pensaita = plural partitive → indefinite number of bushes)

• Talon edessä ei ole pensasta.
  = There is no bush in front of the house.
  (negation triggers partitive: pensasta)

So pensas (nominative) is used here because we mean one complete bush and the sentence is affirmative.

How do we know if pensas means “a bush” or “the bush” when Finnish has no articles?

Finnish has no articles (a/an, the). The form pensas alone does not mark definiteness.

Whether it means a bush or the bush comes from context and word order:

• In Talon edessä on pensas, the pattern [place] + on

  • [noun] usually introduces something new into the conversation. That strongly suggests “a bush”.

• To clearly talk about the bush already known in the context, Finnish more often uses:

  • topical word order: Pensas on talon edessä.
  • or additional context/pronouns if needed.

So:

• Talon edessä on pensas.
  → Normally understood as “There is a bush…” (new information).

If you really needed to emphasize uniqueness or prior knowledge, you’d rely on surrounding sentences, not on a special form of pensas.

Is edessä only for static location? How would I say “(He) walks in front of the house” or “to the front of the house”?

Edessä describes static location: being in front of something, not moving there.

• Talon edessä on pensas.
  = A bush is in front of the house.

For movement to a location, you use eteen instead:

• Hän kävelee talon eteen.
  = He/She walks to in front of the house.

Rough pattern:

• edessä → “in front of” (at that place, no movement)
• eteen → “(to) in front of” (movement towards)

So you would not use edessä for movement; you switch to eteen.

How would I say “in front of my house” or “in front of his/her house” using this pattern?

You keep edessä and change talon to the appropriate possessive form of talo.

Singular:

• taloni edessä = in front of my house
• talosi edessä = in front of your house (singular, informal)
• hänen talonsa edessä = in front of his/her house

Examples in full sentences:

• Taloni edessä on pensas.
  = There is a bush in front of my house.

• Hänen talonsa edessä on pensas.
  = There is a bush in front of his/her house.

The structure [X:n] edessä stays the same; only the owner of the house changes.

How would the sentence look if there were several bushes instead of just one?

You have two common options, depending on what you want to express.

1. Indefinite number of bushes (some bushes)

   • Talon edessä on pensaita.
   • pensaita = plural partitive
   • Implies “some bushes”, number not specified.

2. A specific, known set of bushes (the bushes)

   • Pensaat ovat talon edessä.
   • pensaat = plural nominative
   • Structure is no longer “there are…”, but “the bushes are…”.
   • Assumes the bushes are already known in the context.

If you just want to say “There are (some) bushes in front of the house” in a neutral way, Talon edessä on pensaita is the most natural.

How do I make the sentence negative, like “There is no bush in front of the house”?

You use the negative verb ei and put the noun into the partitive.

Pattern:

• [place] + ei ole
  • [noun in partitive]

For pensas:

• Partitive singular: pensasta

So:

• Talon edessä ei ole pensasta.
  = There is no bush in front of the house.

More examples with the same pattern:

• Pöydällä ei ole kirjaa.
  = There is no book on the table.

Negation in existential sentences almost always triggers partitive on the noun.

Is Finnish on the same as English on (the preposition), or something else here?

In this sentence, on is not a preposition. It is the 3rd person singular form of the verb olla (to be).

• olla = to be
• hän on = he/she is
• se on = it is
• talon edessä on pensas = in front of the house *is a bush*

So here:

• English: There *is a bush in front of the house.*
• Finnish: Talon edessä on pensas.

The fact that Finnish on looks like the English preposition on is just a coincidence; they are unrelated in this context.