Learn Hardcore Finnish: Äänitys on selkeä, joten opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin. - The recording is clear, so the teacher’s voice is heard well.

äänitys – recording in general; can mean both the act and the product.
- Hyvä äänitys. = A good recording.
- Äänitys kestää tunnin. = The recording session lasts an hour.
äänite – specifically the recorded product, like an audio track, CD, MP3.
- More formal/technical.
- Tämä äänite on vuodelta 1990. = This recording (audio release) is from 1990.
nauhoitus – literally taping, originally tied to tape recorders (nauha = tape), but now used quite broadly in everyday speech for recording.
- Katsoin eilisen nauhoituksen. = I watched yesterday’s recording.

In everyday modern Finnish, äänitys is very natural for “audio recording”, so the sentence is completely idiomatic.

Why is it Äänitys on selkeä and not something like Äänitys on selkeää?

This is about the case form of the predicative adjective.

Äänitys on selkeä.
- selkeä is nominative (= dictionary form).
- This is used when you are talking about the recording as a whole having the property of being clear.
- It feels complete and definite: The recording is (completely) clear.
Äänitys on selkeää.
- selkeää is partitive.
- This would sound odd here; partitive in this structure usually suggests something incomplete, partial, or unbounded, or it’s used in certain special meanings (like describing a substance or a type of thing).
- You might use partitive with mass nouns or when saying something like There is clear recording (as a kind of thing), but that’s not natural here.

With olla + adjective, nominative is the normal choice when you are simply stating what something is like as a complete, countable thing:

Talo on suuri. = The house is big.
Opettaja on mukava. = The teacher is nice.
Äänitys on selkeä. = The recording is clear.

So selkeä (nominative) is the correct and natural form.

Is there a difference between selkeä and selvä, since both can mean “clear”?

Both selkeä and selvä can translate as clear, but there are some tendencies in usage:

selkeä
- Very often used for clarity in structure, sound, layout, or appearance.
- Common with things like audio, pronunciation, text layout, explanations.
- Selkeä ääntämys = clear pronunciation.
- Selkeä kuva = clear / sharp picture.
selvä
- Also means clear, but often used for unambiguous, obvious, settled.
- Common in contexts like understanding, decisions, or obviousness.
- Onko asia selvä? = Is the matter clear / understood?
- Se on ihan selvä. = That is totally obvious.

In the sentence about a recording, Äänitys on selkeä sounds a bit more natural, because we’re talking about the clarity of the sound. Äänitys on selvä would not be wrong, but it is less idiomatic for audio quality.

What does joten mean exactly, and how is it used compared to words like siksi or niin että?

joten is a coordinating conjunction meaning roughly so, therefore, so that, and thus.

In the sentence:

Äänitys on selkeä, joten opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin.
= The recording is clear, so the teacher’s voice can be heard well.

Here’s how it compares:

joten
- Connects two clauses.
- The second clause expresses a result or logical consequence of the first.
- Very close to English so / therefore.
- Neutral and common in written and spoken Finnish.
siksi
- An adverb meaning for that reason, that’s why.
- Typically used at or near the beginning of the second clause:
  - Äänitys on selkeä, siksi opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin.
niin että
- Literally so that / in such a way that.
- Often introduces a result clause in a slightly more descriptive way:
  - Äänitys on selkeä, niin että opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin.
- Can feel a bit more informal or narrative in this context.

In standard, neutral writing, joten is very natural here.

Why is it opettajan ääni and not just opettaja ääni or some other form? What is the role of -n?

opettajan ääni literally means the teacher’s voice.

opettajan is genitive singular of opettaja (teacher).
The genitive ending -n marks possession or close association.
Pattern: [possessor in genitive] + [thing possessed in nominative]

So:

opettaja = teacher
opettajan ääni = teacher’s voice
opettajan kirja = teacher’s book
opettajan pöytä = teacher’s table

You cannot say opettaja ääni for “teacher’s voice”. Without the -n, opettaja would just be another noun in nominative, and the relationship would be unclear or wrong.

In opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin, what is the grammatical subject: opettajan or ääni?

The subject is ääni.

ääni is in nominative singular, which is the typical form for the subject.
opettajan is a genitive attribute modifying ääni, showing whose voice it is.

So structurally:

ääni = the voice → subject
opettajan = the teacher’s → attribute of the subject
kuuluu = is heard / is audible → verb
hyvin = well → adverb

The verb kuuluu is 3rd person singular and agrees with ääni, not with opettajan.

Why is the verb kuulua used here instead of kuulla? Don’t both relate to hearing?

Yes, both are about hearing, but they work very differently:

kuulua
- Intransitive verb = to be heard, to be audible.
- Focus is on the sound itself and its audibility.
- Typical pattern: X kuuluu (hyvin / huonosti / taustalta / kauas).
  - Opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin. = The teacher’s voice is heard well / is clearly audible.
kuulla
- Transitive verb = to hear (something).
- Focus is on the hearer and the act of hearing.
- Pattern: Subject + kuulla + object.
  - Kuulen opettajan hyvin. = I hear the teacher well.

So the sentence is describing a property of the recording and the voice (they are audible), not an action by a specific listener. That’s why kuulua is the correct verb.

What does hyvin mean here, and how is it related to hyvä?

hyvin is an adverb meaning well.

hyvä = good (adjective).
hyvin = well (adverb).

In the sentence:

opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin
= the teacher’s voice is heard well / can be heard clearly.

Some notes:

Many Finnish adverbs are formed with -sti (for example selkeästi = clearly, nopeasti = quickly), but hyvin is an irregular adverb form of hyvä.
You cannot say ääni kuuluu hyvä, because hyvä is an adjective and does not modify the verb correctly. You need the adverbial form hyvin.

Is the word order opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin fixed, or could you say something like Hyvin kuuluu opettajan ääni?

The basic neutral order is:

[Subject] [Verb] [Adverb]
- Opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin.

However, Finnish word order is quite flexible, and you can front different elements for emphasis:

Hyvin kuuluu opettajan ääni.
- Also grammatical.
- Now hyvin is emphasized: It is *well that the teacher’s voice is heard, or *The teacher’s voice can indeed be heard clearly.
Kuuluu hyvin opettajan ääni.
- Possible in certain contexts, but sounds more poetic, stylistic, or expressive.

In normal, neutral description (like in learning materials or straightforward narration), opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin is the most typical and natural order.

Could you leave out on and just say Äänitys selkeä, like you sometimes drop “is” in English headlines?

In standard Finnish, you normally do not drop on in this kind of sentence:

Äänitys on selkeä. = correct standard sentence.
Äänitys selkeä. = looks like a headline or very telegraphic / note-style language.

In:

Everyday spoken Finnish, people sometimes shorten things and drop on in some contexts, especially after a pronoun:
- Se on hyvä. → Se hyvä. (colloquial in some dialects)
However, Äänitys selkeä without on is not typical as a full sentence in neutral speech; it would feel more like a note or headline.

So for normal speech and writing, you should include on: Äänitys on selkeä.

How are the long vowels in äänitys and ääni pronounced?

Key points:

ä is like the a in English “cat”, but usually a bit more fronted and pure.
ää (double ä) is just a long version of ä; you hold the sound longer, with equal quality.

Pronunciation:

ääni = ää + ni
- ää: long ä sound.
- ni: like “nee”.
- Stress on the first syllable: ÄÄ-ni.
äänitys = ää + ni + tys
- ää: long ä.
- ni: “nee”.
- tys: “tys” (y as in French u or German ü).
- Stress on the first syllable: ÄÄ-ni-tys.

In Finnish, vowel length (single vs double) is phonemic, so:

äni and ääni would be different words (if äni existed).
You must clearly hold the long vowel about twice as long as a short one.

Why is the present tense (on, kuuluu) used, even though in English we might say “The recording is clear, so the teacher’s voice can be heard well”?

Finnish present tense is quite flexible. It can cover:

present time: what is happening or is true right now.
general truths and typical situations: things that are generally or regularly true.

In this sentence:

Äänitys on selkeä, joten opettajan ääni kuuluu hyvin.

The present tense naturally expresses that:

the recording (as it exists) is clear, and
as a result, the teacher’s voice is audible (whenever you play it).

English uses an auxiliary (can be heard) to express possibility or audibility. Finnish just uses the present form of kuulua; the idea of “can be heard” is built into the semantics of kuulua itself.

So the simple present in Finnish is the normal, idiomatic choice here.