Learn Hardcore Finnish: Budjetti on helpompi pitää, kun käytän laskinta ja kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon. - It is easier to keep to the budget when I use a calculator and write the expenses in a notebook.

to like
- Structure: pitää + elative (‑sta/‑stä)
- Example: Pidän kahvista. – I like coffee.
to keep / hold / maintain
- Structure: pitää + object in case like genitive or nominative/accusative
- Example: Pidän oven auki. – I keep the door open.

In Budjetti on helpompi pitää, you can’t see the object case directly because budjetti has become the grammatical subject of the sentence:

Underlying idea: On helpompi pitää budjetti. – It is easier to keep the budget.
This is then reworded as: Budjetti on helpompi pitää. – The budget is easier to keep.

Because there is no ‑sta/‑stä form (budjetista), we know this is not “to like the budget” but “to keep the budget (under control)”.

Why is it budjetti (nominative) and not budjettia in Budjetti on helpompi pitää?

Both budjetti and budjettia are possible in related sentences, but they mean slightly different things.

Budjetti on helpompi pitää.
- budjetti = nominative, acting as the subject.
- Rough meaning: “This particular budget is easier to keep (than some other budget).”
- You are talking about a specific, known budget.
On helpompaa pitää budjettia.
- budjettia = partitive object of pitää.
- Rough meaning: “It is easier to keep a budget (in general).”
- More general, not one specific budget.

So in the original sentence, nominative budjetti makes it feel like you are comparing this budget to some other situation (another budget or the same budget without those habits) rather than talking about budgeting in general.

Why is there a comma before kun in Budjetti on helpompi pitää, kun käytän laskinta...?

In Finnish, there is normally a comma between a main clause and a subordinate clause introduced by conjunctions like kun, koska, jos, vaikka.

Main clause: Budjetti on helpompi pitää
Subordinate (kun‑) clause: kun käytän laskinta ja kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon

Rule of thumb:
If you can separate the sentence into a main clause and a dependent clause starting with kun, put a comma between them when the main clause comes first.

Both:

Budjetti on helpompi pitää, kun käytän laskinta...
and
Kun käytän laskinta..., budjetti on helpompi pitää.

are correct; in both orders, you use a comma between the two clauses.

What is the nuance of kun here? Could I use jos or koska instead?

Here kun is mainly temporal: “when” (at the time that).

Budjetti on helpompi pitää, kun käytän laskinta...
= The budget is easier to keep when I use a calculator and write the expenses down.

Other options:

jos = if (conditional)
- Budjetti on helpompi pitää, jos käytän laskinta...
- Emphasis: If it happens that I use a calculator, then the budget is easier to keep.
- More hypothetical/conditional than the original.
koska = because
- Budjetti on helpompi pitää, koska käytän laskinta...
- Emphasis: The budget is easier to keep because I use a calculator...
- Causal, not temporal.

So:

kun → focuses on time (“whenever/when I do this”)
jos → focuses on condition (“if I do this”)
koska → focuses on reason (“because I do this”)

In the original, kun is the most natural because you’re describing what happens whenever you use those methods.

Why is it käytän laskinta and not käytän laskimen? Why is laskinta in the partitive?

laskinta is the partitive singular of laskin (“calculator”).

The verb käyttää (“to use”) almost always takes its object in the partitive, because “using” something doesn’t have a clear endpoint or result in the object being “used up”. It’s an atelic action.

Käytän laskinta. – I use a calculator. (partitive)
Käytän konetta. – I use the machine.

Using laskimen (genitive) would sound marked or unusual in ordinary Finnish; you’d hear it mostly in special contexts (like “I will use up the whole [thing] completely”), which doesn’t fit with “using a calculator”.

So käyttää + partitive object is the standard pattern:

käytän puhelinta, käytän tietokonetta, käytän sanakirjaa, käytän laskinta.

Why is it kirjoitan menot ylös and not kirjoitan menoja ylös? What’s going on with the case of menot?

menot is the plural total object (formally the same as plural nominative) of kirjoittaa.

kirjoitan menot ylös
→ I write the expenses down (all of the relevant expenses; seen as a complete whole).

If you said:

kirjoitan menoja ylös (partitive plural)

the meaning would shift to “I (am) writing down some expenses / expenses in general”, without the idea that you are dealing with the complete set.

So:

Total object (menot) → you are dealing with the whole thing, fully or to completion.
Partitive object (menoja) → you are dealing with an indefinite amount, or the action is incomplete/ongoing.

In kirjoitan menot ylös, the idea is that you record the expenses fully so the budget can be kept, which matches the total object.

Why does ylös mean “down” in kirjoitan menot ylös?

Literally, ylös means “up(wards)”, but in this expression it is part of a phrasal verb:

kirjoittaa ylös = to write down, to write something up

This is a very common idiom in Finnish. A few points:

You almost always say kirjoittaa ylös when talking about writing something down for record-keeping.
Without ylös, kirjoittaa menot vihkoon is still grammatical, but it’s more neutral – just “write the expenses in the notebook” without emphasizing the act of recording them properly.
With ylös, the focus is “noting them down so you won’t forget”.

So you can treat kirjoittaa ylös as a fixed two‑word verb whose meaning is naturally translated as “to write down”.

What form is vihkoon, and why is it used instead of vihossa?

vihkoon is the illative singular of vihko (“notebook”).

vihko (nominative) – notebook
vihossa (inessive) – in the notebook
vihkoon (illative) – into the notebook

The illative (‑on / ‑hun / ‑seen, etc.) often corresponds to “into” in English.

In kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon, you are describing movement into a place (onto the pages of the notebook), so the illative vihkoon is appropriate:

kirjoitan menot vihkoon – I write the expenses into the notebook.

If you used vihossa (in the notebook), the focus would be on the state of already being inside the notebook, not on the act of putting them there. For the act of writing them into the notebook, vihkoon is the natural choice.

Why isn’t the subject minä written in kun käytän laskinta ja kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon?

In Finnish, personal pronouns like minä (I), sinä (you) are often left out because the verb ending already shows the person and number.

käytän → clearly 1st person singular (I use)
kirjoitan → clearly 1st person singular (I write)

So:

kun käytän laskinta ja kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon
already unambiguously means “when I use a calculator and write the expenses down in a notebook”.

You can add minä for emphasis or contrast:

kun minä käytän laskinta... – when I use a calculator (as opposed to someone else)

But in neutral, everyday language, it is more natural to omit the pronoun unless you want that extra emphasis.

Why is it helpompi and not helppo? How is this comparative formed?

helpompi is the comparative form of the adjective helppo (“easy”).

helppo – easy
helpompi – easier
helpo(in) – easiest (superlative: helpointa as partitive, etc.)

The comparative is usually formed by:

Taking the adjective stem
- helppo → helpo‑
Adding ‑mpi
- helpo‑ + ‑mpi → helpompi

Meaning here:

Budjetti on helppo pitää. – The budget is easy to keep.
Budjetti on helpompi pitää. – The budget is easier to keep (than before / than another budget).

The sentence implies a comparison (maybe to a situation where you don’t use a calculator or don’t write expenses down), so helpompi (“easier”) is the natural choice.

Could I say Budjetin pitäminen on helpompaa, kun käytän laskinta... instead? How does that differ from Budjetti on helpompi pitää?

Yes, Budjetin pitäminen on helpompaa, kun käytän laskinta ja kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon is perfectly correct. The difference is mainly style and focus.

Budjetti on helpompi pitää...
- Structure: [Noun] + on + comparative adjective + infinitive
- Reads very smoothly and naturally in everyday speech.
- Focuses on “the budget” as if it had the property of being easier to keep.
Budjetin pitäminen on helpompaa...
- Structure: ‑minen noun: pitäminen (“keeping”) + helpompaa (partitive predicative).
- More explicitly noun‑like: “the keeping of the budget is easier”.
- Slightly more formal/abstract; very common in written language and explanations.

Meaning-wise they are almost the same; Budjetti on helpompi pitää is just more direct and conversational, whereas Budjetin pitäminen on helpompaa sounds a bit more like an explanation or textbook style.

Can I move the kun‑clause to the beginning, like Kun käytän laskinta..., budjetti on helpompi pitää? Does the meaning change?

Yes, you can absolutely move the kun‑clause to the beginning:

Kun käytän laskinta ja kirjoitan menot ylös vihkoon, budjetti on helpompi pitää.

This is grammatically correct and natural. The basic meaning stays the same, but the emphasis shifts slightly:

Budjetti on helpompi pitää, kun käytän laskinta...
→ Starts by stating the result (the budget is easier to keep), then explains when that is true.
Kun käytän laskinta..., budjetti on helpompi pitää.
→ Starts by describing the situation/conditions, then states what follows from that (the budget is easier to keep).

In both orders, you keep the comma between the clauses.