Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.
Start learning Finnish now
Questions & Answers about Putkimies tulee aamulla katsomaan, miksi hana vuotaa.
Why is there no word for the in Putkimies tulee aamulla...?
Finnish has no articles (a/an/the). Whether the plumber is “a plumber” or “the plumber” is inferred from context. In real usage, you might add something like se (that/it) for emphasis (Se putkimies...), but it’s not required.
What exactly is putkimies—is it one word on purpose?
Yes. Putkimies is a compound noun: putki (pipe) + mies (man). Compounds are extremely common in Finnish and are usually written as one word. (Modern Finnish also uses alternatives like putkiasentaja, “pipe fitter/plumber”.)
Why does tulee look like present tense if the sentence is about something in the future (“will come”)?
Finnish often uses the present tense to talk about scheduled or expected future events. So tulee can naturally mean “comes” or “will come,” depending on context (here: a planned visit in the morning).
What case is aamulla, and why does -lla/-llä mean “in the morning”?
Aamulla is adessive case (aamu → aamulla). The adessive often means “on/at” a time or place. With times of day, Finnish commonly uses adessive:
- aamulla = in the morning
- illalla = in the evening
- yöllä = at night
Why is it tulee ... katsomaan and not something like “comes to look” with a normal infinitive?
After verbs of movement like tulla (to come) and mennä (to go), Finnish often uses the 3rd infinitive illative to express purpose.
katsomaan = “to (go/come) look / to inspect” (purpose of the coming).
So tulee katsomaan is a set-like pattern: “comes to see/check.”
What form is katsomaan exactly, and how is it built from katsoa?
It’s the 3rd infinitive (ending -ma/-mä) in the illative case (ending -an/-en/-in depending on the word).
katsoa → stem katso- → katsoma- → illative katsomaan.
This “-maan/-mään” form is very common after motion verbs: mennä syömään, tulla auttamaan, etc.
Why is there a comma before miksi?
Because miksi hana vuotaa is a subordinate clause (an embedded/indirect question: “why the tap is leaking”). Finnish uses commas to separate main clauses and subordinate clauses very consistently.
Why is it miksi hana vuotaa and not miksi vuotaa hana or miksi vuotaako hana?
In an indirect question, Finnish usually keeps normal statement word order:
- direct question: Miksi hana vuotaa? / Vuotaako hana?
- indirect question: ... katsomaan, miksi hana vuotaa.
So you don’t use the question clitic -ko/-kö here, because the whole clause is already marked as an embedded question by miksi.
What case is hana, and why isn’t there any ending on it?
Hana is in the nominative (basic dictionary form) because it’s the subject of vuotaa (“to leak”). Subjects are often nominative, so no ending is needed.
Is vuotaa transitive or intransitive here, and does that affect the grammar?
Here vuotaa is intransitive: “the tap leaks.” That’s why hana is simply the subject in nominative. (Finnish can also express “to leak something” in other ways, but this sentence uses the intransitive “leak” meaning.)
Could I replace miksi with koska?
Not in this sentence. miksi means “why” (asking for a reason). koska usually means “because” (giving a reason) or “when/since” depending on context.
So:
- ... katsomaan, miksi hana vuotaa = to check why it leaks
- ... koska hana vuotaa would mean “... because the tap leaks” (a different structure and meaning)
Does the word order matter—could I move aamulla elsewhere?
Yes, you can move it, and it mainly changes emphasis:
- Putkimies tulee aamulla katsomaan... (neutral)
- Aamulla putkimies tulee katsomaan... (emphasizes “in the morning”)
- Putkimies tulee katsomaan aamulla... (also possible, slightly different rhythm)
