Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.

This piece of clothing is cheap but of good quality.

Breakdown of Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.

• olla: to be
• tämä: this
• mutta: but
• halpa: cheap
• vaate: the piece of clothing
• hyvälaatuinen: of good quality

Questions & Answers about Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.

What exactly does vaate mean here? Is it “clothes” or “a piece of clothing”?

Vaate is singular and means “a piece of clothing / a garment.”

• vaate = one item of clothing, a garment
• vaatteet = clothes (plural), clothing items in general

So Tämä vaate is best understood as “this garment / this piece of clothing.” If you want the general “clothes” in plural, you would use vaatteet (see a later question on the plural sentence).

Where is the word “it” in this Finnish sentence? Why don’t we need it?

Finnish normally does not use a separate word for “it” in this kind of sentence.

• Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.
  Literally: “This garment is cheap but good-quality.”

The subject “this garment” is already expressed by Tämä vaate, so Finnish doesn’t add an extra pronoun like English does (“it is”). The verb on (“is”) simply links the subject to the adjectives.

Why are halpa and hyvälaatuinen in this form? Why no endings like halpaa or hyvälaatuista?

Here halpa and hyvälaatuinen are predicative adjectives describing the subject Tämä vaate.

In basic “X is Y” sentences:

• Singular subject in the nominative → adjective also usually in nominative singular
  
  • Tämä vaate on halpa. = This garment is cheap.
  • Tämä vaate on hyvälaatuinen. = This garment is of good quality.

So the base forms halpa and hyvälaatuinen match the subject vaate (nominative singular). Forms like halpaa / hyvälaatuista are partitive and used in different structures (e.g. “I’m buying something cheap”, Ostan halpaa), not in this simple “X is Y” sentence.

Can I say Tämä on halpa vaate instead? What is the difference?

Yes, you can. Both are correct but the structure and emphasis are slightly different:

1. Tämä vaate on halpa.

   • Literally: This garment is cheap.
   • Pattern: [Subject] + on + [adjective]
   • The focus is on the quality of this specific garment: as for this garment, it’s cheap.

2. Tämä on halpa vaate.

   • Literally: This is a cheap garment.
   • Pattern: Tämä + on + [adjective + noun]
   • The focus is on classifying what “this” is: “this (thing) is a cheap garment.”

In everyday speech they’re often interchangeable, but:

• Tämä vaate on halpa stresses the price of this particular garment.
• Tämä on halpa vaate answers the question “What is this?” with a description (“a cheap garment”).

Can I drop vaate and just say Tämä on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen?

Yes, that is also natural Finnish if the context is clear.

• Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.
  → Explicit: This garment is cheap but of good quality.

• Tämä on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.
  → Implicit: This (thing) is cheap but (of) good quality.

In the second version, tämä (“this”) becomes the only subject. Listeners will understand from context that you’re talking about a piece of clothing (or whatever object is in front of you).

How would I say this in the plural: “These clothes are cheap but of good quality”?

A natural plural version is:

• Nämä vaatteet ovat halpoja mutta hyvälaatuisia.
  = These clothes are cheap but of good quality.

Notes:

• Nämä vaatteet = these clothes (plural)
• ovat = are (3rd person plural of olla)
• halpoja, hyvälaatuisia = partitive plural forms of the adjectives

In modern Finnish, when you describe the general quality of multiple items, it’s very common to put the adjectives in partitive plural in this “X ovat Y” pattern.

A bit more formal but also correct is:

• Nämä vaatteet ovat halvat mutta hyvälaatuiset.

Here the adjectives are in nominative plural. Both versions are understandable; the partitive plural version is extremely common in everyday language for describing qualities.

What does hyvälaatuinen literally consist of? Is it a compound word?

Yes, hyvälaatuinen is a compound-like adjective built from:

• hyvä = good
• laatu = quality
• -inen = an adjective-forming ending

So literally it’s something like “good-quality-ish”, i.e. “of good quality / good-quality.”

Other similar adjectives:

• huonolaatuinen = of bad/poor quality (huono = bad)
• korkealaatuinen = of high quality (korkea = high)

In practice, hyvälaatuinen is the standard way to say “good-quality” about products, clothes, materials, etc.

Is there any difference between halpa and edullinen when talking about price?

Both relate to being not expensive, but the nuance is different:

• halpa

  • Basic meaning: cheap, low-priced
  • Can sometimes sound a bit negative or neutral: cheap in quality, or just low price.
  • In advertising, halpa can sometimes feel too blunt.

• edullinen

  • Literally “advantageous, favorable (in terms of price)”
  • Nuance: good value for the money, reasonably priced
  • Often used in marketing and polite speech.

In your sentence:

• Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.
  Emphasis: The price is low, but the quality is still good.

If you say:

• Tämä vaate on edullinen ja hyvälaatuinen.
  It sounds more like “This garment is affordable and good-quality” — implicitly positive and less “cheap-sounding.”

Why is there no comma before mutta here? Doesn’t “but” usually take a comma?

In Finnish, commas are used differently than in English.

• Mutta = but
• You must have a comma before mutta if it starts a new finite clause (with its own verb), for example:
  
  • Tämä vaate on halpa, mutta se on hyvälaatuinen.
    = This garment is cheap, but it is of good quality.

In your original sentence:

• Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.

there is only one verb (on). The second part (hyvälaatuinen) does not have its own verb; it just continues describing the same subject. So it’s treated as a single clause, and no comma is needed.

You could add a comma for a pause in more informal writing, but it’s not required by the grammar here.

Could I say Tämä vaate on halpa, mutta se on hyvälaatuinen? Would that be natural?

Yes, that is perfectly natural and grammatically correct:

• Tämä vaate on halpa, mutta se on hyvälaatuinen.
  = This garment is cheap, but it is of good quality.

Differences from the original:

• Original:
  Tämä vaate on halpa mutta hyvälaatuinen.

  • One clause, one verb (on).
  • Very compact; both adjectives directly describe the garment.

• With se on repeated:
  Tämä vaate on halpa, mutta se on hyvälaatuinen.

  • Two clauses, each with its own verb (on).
  • Slightly stronger contrast and a clearer pause: it’s cheap, but still good-quality.

Both versions are natural; the short one is more concise, the longer one adds a tiny bit of emphasis to the contrast.