028
Log inSign up

Pesuaine toimii hyvin myös lattian pyyhkimiseen, jos pölyä on paljon.

Pesuaine toimii hyvin myös lattian pyyhkimiseen, jos pölyä on paljon.
The detergent also works well for wiping the floor if there is a lot of dust.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Pesuaine toimii hyvin myös lattian pyyhkimiseen, jos pölyä on paljon.

Why is pesuaine in the basic form (nominative) and not in some case ending?
Because pesuaine is the subject of the sentence: Pesuaine toimii... = Detergent works.... In Finnish, the subject is very often in the nominative when it’s a normal positive clause (no negation, no special “partial subject” situation). So pesuaine stays unchanged here.
What does toimii mean here, and why is it in the 3rd person singular?
Toimii is the 3rd person singular present tense of toimia (to function / to work). It agrees with the subject pesuaine (singular), so you get pesuaine toimii = the detergent works (i.e., is effective / does the job).
Why is myös placed where it is? Could it be moved?

Myös means also and its position can shift depending on what you want to emphasize.

  • Pesuaine toimii hyvin myös lattian pyyhkimiseen = it works well also for wiping the floor (the “also” attaches naturally to that purpose phrase).
    You could move it, but the nuance changes:
  • Myös pesuaine toimii hyvin... = detergent too works well (as opposed to something else).
  • Pesuaine toimii myös hyvin... = detergent works well too (emphasis on “well, in addition”).
Why is it lattian (genitive) and not lattia?

Because Finnish often marks the “object” of an action noun (a noun describing an action) with the genitive. Here pyyhkiminen = wiping, and lattian pyyhkiminen literally means the wiping of the floor.
So lattian is like “floor’s” in English (though it’s used much more broadly than English possessives).

What is pyyhkimiseen exactly? Why does it end in -miseen?

Pyyhkimiseen is the illative case of the noun pyyhkiminen (wiping).

  • Base: pyyhkiä (to wipe)
  • Action noun: pyyhkiminen (wiping)
  • Illative: pyyhkimiseen (into/for wiping)

The illative often answers mihin? (into where?) but with purpose/usage it commonly means for doing something. So lattian pyyhkimiseen = for wiping the floor.

Why does Finnish use an action noun here instead of an infinitive like “to wipe”?

Finnish often expresses “for doing X” with -minen nouns in a case:

  • (johonkin) pyyhkimiseen = for wiping
  • (johonkin) pesemiseen = for washing

This is very common after words like toimia (to work/be suitable), sopii (is suitable), käy (is fine/works), etc. It’s one of the standard Finnish ways to express purpose/usage.

Could you say toimii hyvin lattian pyyhkimisessä instead? What would change?

Yes, and the meaning would shift slightly:

  • pyyhkimiseen (illative) emphasizes suitability/purpose: works well for wiping the floor.
  • pyyhkimisessä (inessive, “in wiping”) emphasizes the activity context: works well when wiping the floor / in the process of wiping.

Both can be idiomatic, but toimia + -miseen is especially common for “works for (a use)”.

Why is there a comma before jos?

In Finnish, a subordinate clause introduced by jos (if) is normally separated with a comma:
..., jos pölyä on paljon.
This is standard written punctuation.

Why is it pölyä (partitive) and not pöly?

Pölyä is partitive because dust here is an uncountable mass and the sentence is about an indefinite amount of it. Finnish typically uses the partitive for:

  • uncountable substances (pölyä, vettä, hiekkaa)
  • indefinite quantities (some dust)
  • and especially with quantity words (see next question)

So pölyä on paljon = there is a lot of dust (an indefinite amount).

Why does paljon “force” the partitive: pölyä on paljon?

Quantity words like paljon (a lot), vähän (a little), jonkin verran (some), etc. typically take a partitive noun:

  • paljon pölyä = a lot of dust
  • vähän vettä = a little water

So even though pölyä is the subject in meaning, it’s in the partitive because the amount is indefinite and quantified.

What is the structure pölyä on paljon? Why isn’t it paljon pölyä on?

Both word orders can exist, but they have different emphasis. The neutral, very common existential pattern is:

  • (paikassa) on + partitive subject: pölyä on = there is dust
    Adding the quantity:
  • pölyä on paljon is natural and neutral.

Paljon pölyä on is possible, but it tends to feel more contrastive/emphatic (like There is a lot of dust (not just a little)).

Does jos pölyä on paljon refer to the floor being dusty, or could it mean “if there is a lot of dust (in general)”?
Grammatically, it just says if there is a lot of dust without stating location. In real usage, the context usually makes it understood: here it most naturally means if there’s a lot of dust on the floor / around while cleaning. If you wanted to be explicit, you could add a location phrase, e.g. jos lattialla on paljon pölyä = if there’s a lot of dust on the floor.