Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minun keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja. - My conversation partner is a pen pal from Sweden with whom I exchange emails.

Minun keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja.

My conversation partner is a pen pal from Sweden with whom I exchange emails.

Breakdown of Minun keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja.

the conversation partner

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Minun keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja.

Why do we have both minun and the ending -ni in keskustelukumppanini? Isn’t that saying “my” twice?

Yes, in a sense it is “double marking” of possession, and that is actually normal Finnish.

minun = the genitive form of minä (I), so “my”
keskustelukumppanini = keskustelukumppani (conversation partner) + -ni “my”

You have three main options:

keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä…
– Only the possessive suffix -ni is used.
– Very typical in written / neutral Finnish.
minun keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä…
– Both pronoun minun and suffix -ni.
– Correct and common. Often adds a little emphasis, like “my conversation partner (as opposed to someone else’s).”
minun keskustelukumppani on kirjeystävä…
– Only minun, no possessive suffix.
– Common in spoken language and informal writing, but traditionally considered less “standard” in formal written Finnish.

So it’s not a mistake; it’s normal to have minun + -ni together, especially when you want to emphasize “my.”

What exactly does keskustelukumppanini consist of, and why is it one long word?

keskustelukumppanini breaks down like this:

keskustelu = conversation
kumppani = partner, companion
keskustelukumppani = conversation partner (a compound noun)
-ni = my (1st-person singular possessive suffix)
keskustelukumppanini = my conversation partner

In Finnish, compound nouns are usually written as one word:

keskustelu
- kumppani → keskustelukumppani
kirje
- ystävä → kirjeystävä

The possessive suffix is then attached to the end of the whole compound:

keskustelukumppani
- -ni → keskustelukumppanini

Why is it kirjeystävä and not something like kirje ystävä?

In Finnish, when two nouns together form a specific combined meaning, they are usually written as a single compound:

kirje (letter) + ystävä (friend)
→ kirjeystävä = “pen pal”

If you wrote kirje ystävä as two words, it would be interpreted literally as “letter friend” in a looser sense and sound ungrammatical in this context. The standard word for “pen pal” is the fixed compound kirjeystävä.

You might also see:

kirjekaveri (letter buddy / pen friend)
– More casual; kaveri = buddy, mate.

But kirjeystävä is the neutral, straightforward term used here.

Why is Ruotsista used, and what does the ending -sta mean?

Ruotsista is:

Ruotsi = Sweden
-sta/-stä = elative case, meaning “out of / from inside”

So Ruotsista literally means “from (out of) Sweden.”

Finnish often uses the elative (-sta/-stä) for origin:

Suomesta = from Finland
Venäjältä vs. Venäjältä? (Here, note: -lta/-ltä is also possible for some words, but Ruotsi normally takes -sta/-stä: Ruotsista.)

So kirjeystävä Ruotsista = “a pen pal from Sweden.”

Why is there a comma before jonka kanssa?

The part jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja is a relative clause describing kirjeystävä Ruotsista:

“a pen pal from Sweden, with whom I exchange emails”

In Finnish, non-restrictive relative clauses like this are set off with a comma:

kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jonka kanssa…

So the comma marks the beginning of the relative clause that adds extra information about the pen pal.

Why is it jonka and not joka? What case is jonka in?

joka is the basic relative pronoun meaning roughly “who/which/that.” It changes form according to case, just like nouns and adjectives.

Nominative: joka (who, which)
Genitive: jonka (whose, of whom/which)
Partitive: jota
etc.

Here we have jonka kanssa:

kanssa (with) normally takes a genitive form before it:
- ystävän kanssa = with a friend
- minun kanssani = with me
- hänen kanssaan = with him/her
- jonka kanssa = with whom

So we need the genitive form of joka, which is jonka, because it is governed by the postposition kanssa.

What is kanssa, and why does it come after jonka instead of before it like English “with”?

kanssa is a postposition meaning “with.”

In English, “with” is a preposition that comes before the word it governs:

with my friend

In Finnish, kanssa comes after a genitive word:

ystävän kanssa = with (my) friend
äitini kanssa = with my mother
jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja = with whom I exchange emails

So the structure is basically:

[genitive noun / pronoun / relative pronoun] + kanssa

What does vaihdan mean exactly, and why is there no minä (I) before it?

vaihdan is the 1st person singular present form of vaihtaa:

vaihtaa = to change, to exchange, to swap
minä vaihdan = I exchange / I change
vaihdan = (I) exchange

In Finnish, the verb ending already shows the subject, so the pronoun is usually dropped unless you want extra emphasis or contrast.

Vaihdan sähköposteja. = I exchange emails.
Minä vaihdan sähköposteja. = I exchange emails (as opposed to someone else, or for emphasis).

So leaving out minä is the default, natural style.

Why is sähköposteja in that form? What case and number is it, and why not sähköpostit?

sähköposteja is:

sähköposti = email (message)
sähköpostit = emails (nominative plural)
sähköposteja = partitive plural

So we have:

stem: sähköposti-
plural marker: -t → postit
partitive plural ending: -a/-ä → posteja

Why partitive plural?

vaihtaa + partitive is very typical when you talk about exchanging some indefinite amount of things:
- vaihdan viestejä = I exchange (some) messages
- vaihdan sähköposteja = I exchange emails (in general / repeatedly)
Partitive plural often expresses:
- ongoing or repeated activity
- an indefinite, not fully counted quantity

If you said vaihdan sähköpostit, it would sound like you are exchanging a specific, complete set of emails (all of them), which is not the usual meaning here. sähköposteja is more natural for “we (regularly) exchange emails.”

Could you also say sähköpostia instead of sähköposteja? What would be the difference?

Yes, sähköpostia (partitive singular) is also grammatically possible, but the nuance changes:

vaihdan sähköposteja
– Emphasizes individual emails; several emails are exchanged over time.
– Common, natural in this context.
vaihdan sähköpostia
– Treats “email” more like a mass or activity:
- “I exchange email (as a medium)”
  – Could be understood more abstractly as the activity of emailing, not focusing on countable individual messages.

In practice, for a pen pal relationship, sähköposteja (partitive plural) is the most idiomatic choice.

Why is kirjeystävä in the basic form (nominative) after on? Could it be in some other case?

In the sentence:

Minun keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista…

we have a simple equative structure:

Subject: Minun keskustelukumppanini = my conversation partner
Verb: on = is
Predicative (complement): kirjeystävä Ruotsista = a pen pal from Sweden

In such “X is Y” sentences, Finnish normally keeps the complement in the nominative case:

Hän on opettaja. = He/she is a teacher.
Tämä on ongelma. = This is a problem.
Keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä. = My conversation partner is a pen pal.

Other cases are possible with different nuances (e.g. on kirjeystävänä can mean “is acting / functioning as a pen pal”), but the basic identity statement uses the nominative.

Could we omit minun and just say Keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista…? Would the meaning change?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct:

Keskustelukumppanini on kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja.

The meaning is essentially the same: “My conversation partner is a pen pal from Sweden, with whom I exchange emails.”

Differences:

With minun:
- Slight emphasis on “my conversation partner.”
- A bit more explicit, sometimes more formal-sounding.
Without minun:
- Slightly more compact and neutral.
- Very normal, especially in written Finnish where the possessive suffix -ni is enough to show ownership.

Both are correct; context and style preference decide which one you use.

Could the relative clause be reordered, for example jolle vaihdan sähköposteja instead of jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja?

You could grammatically say:

…kirjeystävä Ruotsista, jolle vaihdan sähköposteja.

But the meaning shifts slightly:

jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja
– Literally “with whom I exchange emails”
– Implies a two-way exchange: both write to each other.
jolle vaihdan sähköposteja
– Literally “to whom I exchange/send emails”
– Can sound more one-directional: I send him/her emails (not necessarily that they reply).

The original jonka kanssa vaihdan sähköposteja most clearly expresses mutual correspondence, which fits the idea of a pen pal.