Learn Hardcore Finnish: On helpompi olla rauhallinen, kun tiedän, että säästötilillä on vähän rahaa hätätilannetta varten. - It is easier to be calm when I know that there is some money in the savings account for an emergency.

Here on is just the verb olla (to be), 3rd person singular present, used impersonally. There is no actual subject like se here; Finnish simply doesn’t need an equivalent of English dummy “it”.

You could say Se on helpompaa olla rauhallinen, but that sounds heavier and is less natural than the compact impersonal On helpompi olla rauhallinen. The impersonal pattern On + comparative adjective + infinitive is very common:

On vaikea ymmärtää. – It is hard to understand.
On hauskaa matkustaa. – It is fun to travel.

Why does the Finnish use olla twice, in On helpompi olla rauhallinen? It looks like “is easier to be calm”.

The structure is:

On – “is” (main verb, impersonal)
helpompi – “easier” (comparative adjective)
olla rauhallinen – infinitive phrase, “to be calm”

So literally: “Is easier to be calm.”

Finnish uses the infinitive olla to express the action or state you’re talking about:

On vaikeampi olla hiljaa. – It is harder to be quiet.
On mukavampi olla kotona. – It is more pleasant to be at home.

Here olla rauhallinen works as the “thing” that is easier. English needs “it” as a dummy subject, but Finnish doesn’t, so you just get On helpompi olla rauhallinen.

What exactly does kun mean here, and why not koska?

In kun tiedän, että…, kun is a conjunction that can often mean:

when
sometimes as/while
in some contexts, even because

In this sentence, kun is best understood as “when” in a temporal or conditional sense:

On helpompi olla rauhallinen, kun tiedän…
→ It’s easier to be calm when I know…

If you used koska, it would emphasize a clearer causal relationship:

On helpompi olla rauhallinen, koska tiedän, että…
→ It’s easier to be calm because I know that…

Both are possible, but kun sounds a bit more like a general condition or circumstance, less like a direct, logical explanation than koska.

Why do we need että in tiedän, että säästötilillä on vähän rahaa? Can it be left out?

Että here is a subordinating conjunction, similar to English “that” after verbs like know, think, say.

Tiedän, että säästötilillä on vähän rahaa.
→ I know that there is a little money in the savings account.

In Finnish, you generally must include että in this kind of clause. Leaving it out (*Tiedän, säästötilillä on vähän rahaa ) is ungrammatical or sounds like you accidentally started a new sentence.

Same pattern:

Luulen, että hän tulee. – I think (that) he is coming.
Sanoin, että en voi tulla. – I said (that) I can’t come.

Why is it säästötilillä on vähän rahaa and not something like säästötili on vähän rahaa?

Finnish expresses “there is X in/at Y” (and often possession) with a special existential pattern:

[location in a local case] + on + [thing]

Here:

säästötilillä – “on the savings account / in the savings account”
- säästö (savings) + tili (account) + -llä (adessive case)
on – “is”
vähän rahaa – “a little money”

Literally: “On the savings account is a little money.”

English flips that structure and says “there is a little money in the savings account”.

Same pattern:

Pöydällä on kirja. – There is a book on the table.
Tilillä on sata euroa. – There is 100 euros in the account.

If you said *säästötili on vähän rahaa, it would sound like “the savings account is a little money”, which makes no sense. The local case -llä is crucial here.

Why is it vähän rahaa and not vähän raha?

Raha is in the partitive: rahaa.

Two key reasons:

Vähän (“a little / some”) is a quantifier that normally requires the partitive case on the noun it quantifies.
Raha (money) is treated as a mass noun, and indefinite amounts of a mass or uncountable noun are usually in the partitive.

Compare:

vähän rahaa – a little money
paljon rahaa – a lot of money
jonkin verran aikaa – some time
hiukan vettä – a little water

Using *vähän raha would be incorrect; the partitive rahaa is required after vähän in this sense.

Why is hätätilannetta in the partitive in hätätilannetta varten?

The postposition varten (“for”) normally requires the partitive case on the noun before it. That’s why you have:

hätätilannetta varten – for an emergency (for an emergency situation)

Structure:

hätätilanne – emergency (nominative)
hätätilannetta – emergency (partitive singular)
varten – for (postposition)

Other examples with varten:

sinua varten – for you
matkaa varten – for the trip
lapsettomia pareja varten – for childless couples

So the partitive here is not about quantity; it’s demanded by varten as part of its grammar.

What’s the nuance of hätätilannetta varten compared to something like hätätilanteessa?

hätätilannetta varten
- Literally: for (an) emergency situation
- Emphasizes purpose / reserved use. The money is set aside for that purpose.
hätätilanteessa
- Means: in an emergency situation (inessive case)
- Describes where/when something happens, not what it’s reserved for.

So:

Säästötilillä on vähän rahaa hätätilannetta varten.
→ There is a little money in the savings account for an emergency (as a reserve).
Hätätilanteessa tarvitaan rahaa.
→ In an emergency, money is needed.

The original sentence specifically talks about money saved for emergencies, so hätätilannetta varten is the natural choice.

Could you also say On helpompi pysyä rauhallisena? How is that different from olla rauhallinen?

Yes, On helpompi pysyä rauhallisena, kun… is correct and natural, but the nuance shifts slightly:

olla rauhallinen – “to be calm”
- Neutral state of being calm.
pysyä rauhallisena – “to stay/remain calm”
- Highlights the continuation or maintenance of calmness.

Also notice:

rauhallinen vs rauhallisena
- With olla, you typically use nominative: olla rauhallinen (to be calm).
- With pysyä, you often use the essive case: pysyä rauhallisena (to stay in the state of being calm).

So:

On helpompi olla rauhallinen, kun tiedän…
→ It’s easier to be calm, when I know…
On helpompi pysyä rauhallisena, kun tiedän…
→ It’s easier to stay calm, when I know…

Both are correct; the original just talks about being calm in general.